WHO ARE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS? 


AN ACCOUNT OF THE SPLIT IN THE 
BAPTIST DENOMINATION 


ON THE 


Baptist State Convention, Missions, Bible and 
Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, Etc. 


WITH 


SIDE-EIGHTS: ON- THE SPLIT: 


Being Quotations from Various Authors Bearing on the Subject; 
Showing, it is Claimed, that the People Commonly 
Known as “ Missionary Baptists ” are Really 
the Old or Primitive Baptists 


BY 
ELDER HENRY SHEETS 


en 


PRESSES OF EDWARDS & BROUGHTON PRINTING COMPANY, 
RALEIGH, N. C. 


- a “ 
\ 

* < 

— f iy = 

aes . 

—_s = 

= - , 

a ie \ 

Ls . 


DNedication 


Jo all Baptist Pastors 
and the fatthful in their flocks, 
who love the cause 
of Bible Missions, and strive to make the 
truth known, this little book és 
respectfully dedicated 
by the Author 


This small volume is intended for general circulation 
among the masses, who may not have had the opportunity to 
examine the cause which led up to the split in Baptist ranks 
and to show the deadly opposition to all and every effort to 
spread the gospel, by Anti-Missionary Baptists. 

In the interest of Bible truth, the author desires to explode 
the claim of Anti-Mission Baptists, that they are the “Old” 
or “Primitive Baptists.” How well he may have succeeded in 
his effort, is left to the reading public to decide. He is con- 
scious that this effort is not to “down” any body or people, 
but that the historical facts as relate to the split may be made 
widely known. 

The Anti-Mission Baptists as a denomination are consid- 
erably less than one hundred years old. Never was there 
such a people or denomination known to history till in the 
first half of the last century. 

History is our only means of knowing the past. If we 
discard it, we are left to flounder in mazes of am a 
without chart or compass. 

The reader is respectfully referred if the historical data 
herewith published and “take the case.” 
Henry SHEETS. 
Lexington, N. C., February 20th, 1908. 


aa TPB ER i oh 
Ui MR MLS Bi Hugi 
© 


ae aia 
ip ’ arr + far Pe Vewy et i-rt*: poe Ae om 
a Wai. Stipek: 
ye Sesh Muha : ae ; 
ne ~~ ie 
iw 4 
4 ‘| x 
4) 
eae | 


i Digitized by the Internet 
in 2 with fundi gf 


beg eed 

a ET | 
= 

Ny 4 


https://archive.org/details/whoareprimativeb01 she 


INTRODUCTION. 


Tue Reasons OF THE Split iv ABBott’s CREEK Assocra- 
TIoN*—TuHeE Mryisters AnD Messrencers, CoMPOSING THE 
Liserty Baptist ASSSOcIATION, TO THE CHURCHES THEY 
REPRESENT. 

Dear Breturen: The subject on which we address you at 
this time, is the origin and history of our own body; in order 
to give you a correct history of the origin, the rise and progress 
of our Association, we must resort to the history of the Sandy 
Creek Association ; of which we were a component part, until 
that body was divided, and we were attached to the southern 
division of it, which was called the Pee Dee Association; and 
also a brief history of the Pee Dee Association, until 1815, 
when the Sandy Creek and the Pee Dee Associations were sub- 
divided, and the Abbott’s Creek Association, formed of the 
western parts of the two bodies. The Sandy Creek Church, 
the oldest in the Association, originated in the following man- 
ner: Shubal Stearns, a native of Boston, Mass., who after 
laboring for some time among the Independents, in 1751, 
embraced Baptist sentiment, and was baptized by Wait 
Palmer, and ordained the same year in Toland, Conn. Listen- 
ing to the instructions of heaven as he esteemed them; con- 
ceived himself called upon by the Almighty to move to the 
westward, to execute a great and extensive work. In 1754 
and with a few of his friends, took his leave of New England, 
‘and traveled to Berkley in Virginia; and thence to Guilford 
County, N. C., where he took up his permanent residence. 
Benedict informs us, as soon as they arrived, they built them 
a little meeting-house, and sixteen of them formed themselves 
into a church, and chose Shubal Stearns for their pastor, 
-who had for his assistants, Daniel Marshall and Joseph 
Breed, neither of whom was ordained. 


*TIn the organization of the Association a committee of three. consisting of John 
Culpepper. William Burch and Peter Owen. was appointed to draft the reasons of the 
“Split.” But for some reason they vere not printed till 1834. 


8 Introduction. 


In process of time, some of its inhabitants became converts, 
and bowed obedience to the Redeemer’s sceptre: these uniting 
their labors with the others, a powerful and extensive work 
commenced, and Sandy Creek Church was soon swelled from 
16 to 606 members. 

Abbott’s Creek Church was soon constituted, and Daniel 
Marshall was chosen their pastor. Benedict says: From Sandy 
Creek went the word and great was the company of them who 
published it. 

This church has spread her branches westward, to the 
great Mississippi, southward as far as Georgia, eastward to 
the sea and Chesapeake Bay, and northward to the waters of 
the Potomae. 

In the year 1758, a few churches having been constituted, 
and these having a number of branches, which were fast ma- 
turing for churches; Stearns conceived that an association of 
delegates from all would have a tendency to forward the great 
object of their exertions. For this purpose he visited each 
chureh and congregation and explained to them his contem- 
plated plan, and induced them to send delegates to his meeting- 
house, and in January, 1758, an Association was formed, 
which was called Sandy Creek, and which continues to the 
present time. 

This Association has experienced many vicissitudes of pros- 
perity and adversity, and from this old Association, churches 
have been raised up which have become component parts of 
several large and flourishing bodies in several States. 

In 1815, at an Association held at Rocky Springs M. H., 
commencing the 28th of October, 1815, the Association took 
into consideration the propriety of dividing the Association 
into two Associations, and resolved that it be divided, and 
that all the churches on the southwest side of Deep River, 
shall compose the new Association, to be known as the Pee 
Dee. 

The said Sandy Creek Association did, at the said session, 
held at Rocky Spring, resolve to send Robert T. Daniel and 


Introduction. 9 


Robert Ward, as messengers to the general meeting of Corres- 
pondence, and send two dollars. They also appointed Robert 
T. Daniel, Corresponding Secretary to the Baptist Board of 
Foreign Missions of the United (1 suppose that States is 
meant). Hlder Bennet Solomon, reported that he attended 
the General Meeting of Correspondence according to appoint- 
ment. 

The Association appointed Elders John Culpepper and 
Bennet Solomon Messengers from the Pee Dee Association, 
to the General Meeting of Correspondence and we contribute 
two dollars. They also resolved to pay Elders Culpepper and 
Solomon, five dollars each, for attending the General Meeting 
of Correspondence. 

The Pee Dee Association, into which most of the churches 
of our body were arranged by the division, met at Richland 
M. H., Montgomery county, on the 19th, 20th and 21st days 
of October, 1816 ; when the introductory sermon was preached 
by Elder J. Culpepper, and J. Culpepper was chosen Modera- 
tor, and William Dowd, Clerk. 

They adopted Rules of Decorum for the government of 
the Association, and being actuated by the same missionary 
spirit, or zeal for the Lord of Hosts and love for immortal 
souls which actuated Shubal Stearns and his brethren, and 
diffused itself through the parent Associations at their first 
session, resolved to appoint J. Culpepper a Corresponding 
Secretary to the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions and Mes- 
senger to the General Meeting of Correspondence. Like the 
parent Association, this experienced many vicissitudes of 
prosperity and adversity, but continued to increase in mem- 
bers and churches, until the year 1825 when the division took 
place, and the Abbott’s Creek Association was formed and 
since that period she has traveled on nearly as formerly, and 
increased in members until September 1832, when at a session 
held at Mount Tabor in Randolph County, an unfortunate 
division was affected in the following manner: 


10 Introduction. 


After the introductory sermon was delivered, the Messen- 
gers retired to the house, when Isaiah Spurgeon took the chair 
as Moderator. The letters were then called for, and two were 
presented purporting to be from Lick Creek Chureh ; the clerk 
read the letter from the majority, claiming to be the church 
in which they named Messengers, and instructed them not to 
sit with any persons who were advocates of the Baptist State 
Convention. , 

Isaiah Spurgeon then arose and said he was inexperienced 
in the duties of the chair, and remarked that two letters were 
presented from Lick Creek, and as it was new to him, he asked 
advice from such as were more experienced than himself. 
Elder J. Culpepper proposed for them to receive and read 
the letters from the undivided churches, and then the Associa- 
tion would be competent and could decide which should be 
received and the minority, if necessary, may retire. Elder 
Ashley Swaim and others objected to this course, and after 
considerable debate, it was decided in the negative. 

The Moderator then proposed that the members said to be 
excluded, should retire to their respective churches, and make 
their acknowledgments and that the Association appoint a 
committee to labor with them. William Burch objected to 
it and the question being taken, was decided in the negative. 
William Spurgeon then proposed that the Association should 
advise, and the churches call for help and labor with the 
divided churches and try to bring about a reconciliation. Ash- 
ley Swaim, Solomon Snider, Philip Snider and others ob- 
jected to the proposition, which was rejected. 

The Rules of Decorum were then called for and after they 
were read, Ashley Swaim said the last rule forbade the Asso- 
ciation to interfere with the affairs of an independent church 
and stated that from Eli Carroll’s acknowledgment, it was 
evident that he, and the members who stood with him, had 
withdrawn from the church, and the church should be re- 
eived. 


Introduction. 11 


Eli Carroll said the majority had declared all who held 
with the Bible Societies, the Missionary Society or the Sab- 
bath-school, were out of their fellowship, and they withdrew, 
to avoid being excluded. J. Culpepper said he rejoiced that 
the subject had assumed a tangible shape, so that if the 
minority had to retire, it could be distinctly ascertained on 
what grounds we were induced to retire. 

The N. C. Baptist State Convention had been frequently 
named and objected to. 

J. Culpepper explained the objects of the Convention to be 
first to encourage itinerant preaching and supply the destitute 
churches in our State with preaching. Secondly, to afford 
assistance to our Baptist Brethren in Burmah and help them 
to supply the Burmans who were applying to them for direc- 
tions how to escape an eternal hell and to obtain a knowledge 
of the eternal God, before they die, with the word of God. 

Thirdly, to aid our poor young ministers in the attainment 
of learning and biblical knowledge. Jesse Sowell said, the 
ground on which he was disowned by the majority of the 
Tom’s Creek Church was, that he had given one dollar to aid 
the Burman mission and attended the Baptist State Conven- 
tion and called on the majority to say if they had ever charged 
him with any immoral conduct. 

Isaiah Spurgeon said he had no fellowship with any of 
these institutions and expressed a hope that all who held 
with him would proceed. James Brown asked him if in his 
declaration he designed to include those who held with these 
institutions? He answered: we can not serve God and Mam- 
mon, and he who is not for us is against us, and said he could 
not fellowship any person who held with these institutions. — 

The question was then put, and decided in the affirmative. 
Some of the minority said, if they could not sit with any per- 
son who held with the Bible Society, the Missionary Society 
or the Sabbath-school, we may retire, and we shall do it with 
satisfaction. 


12 Introduction. 


The majority expressed a hope that we would retire and 
trouble them no more. We retired, and the majority pro- 
ceeded to read their Letters and appointed their preachers to 
the entire exclusion of the minority and the Corresponding 
Messengers. 


CHAPTER I. 


An Extrenpep ACCOUNT OF THE “SpLir”’ anp EXAMINATION 
As TO “Wuo Arr THE Primitive Baptists.” 


It is proposed to throw some light on the question pro- 
pounded. This would be unnecessary but for the fact that 
our anti-mission or Hardshell brethren did, after the split, 
appropriate to themselves the title of “Primitive” Baptists 
and honored us with that of “Missionary” Baptists. And 
they have persisted in this course so long that all, or nearly 
all, of their own people really believe this to be true. Not 
only so, but many in our own ranks believe it, too. 

They have endeavored long to make believe that the people 
commonly called Missionary Baptists are of very recent origin 
and that they are the genuine article, descended from Christ 
and the Apostles. This we deny. So far as age is concerned, 
one side is just as old as the other, for we all had the same 
origin, the same Articles of Faith, up till the split. The 
difference is as to what is believed and practiced now as com- 
pared with what was held and practiced then. 

In treating this subject the author wishes to be perfectly 
candid, for he well knows that nothing but the truth can 
stand the test of history bearing on this subject. A faithful 
and honest study of the question will aid in the establishment 
of the truth. 

There was a time when the Baptists were one in sentiment 
and purpose as to the spread of the Gospel and the upbuilding 
of Christ’s kingdom on earth. They were enjoying the bless- 
ings of union and harmony on all questions pertaining to the 
organization of effort for the spread of the truth. They were 
growing rapidly in numerical strength and the consequent 
multiplication of churches and arms of churches. Not only 
so, but they were organizing Missionary Societies, Bible So- 
cieties, Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, ete., and giving en- 


14 An Account of the Split. 


couragement to all these institutions without one word of pro- 
test; but, on the other hand, our churches and brethren all 
seemed as one; not one single note of discord to mar the beau- 
tiful, Christ-like harmony. 

It will ever be a source of regret that a division along the 
lines indicated was ever forced upon the denomination by a 
few designing men. While this division was being worked 
up, there were many instances of the most intense bitterness 
on the part of those who were leading, as well as many of 
the new converts to this new and unheard of doctrine, which 
was just beginning to be propagated, which was arraying the 
people and churches against each other.* 

Some of the old church records show that this bitterness 
had in some instances developed to such an extent that they 
positively refused to heed the beseechings and loving en- 
treaties of the brethren and sisters, who pleaded with them to 
cherish a spirit of love and forbearance toward them, to the 
end that they all might live on as in former years. But so 
far as known, they never yielded in a single instance. They 
did then, and do now, regard all who are not in their fold as 
out of the true church, and consequently they eall no one 
“brother” unless in their church, in which case many of them 
regard him then as one of the “elect.” Very few of them 
would lead in public prayer among other people, seemingly 
thinking it sacrilege to engage with others in worship. And 
the Baptists which they left, they often call “Arminians,” or 
“Mystery Babylon.” 


1Prof. J. T. Alderman, in an able article, ‘‘The Baptists in the Forks 
of the Yadkin,”’ published in Aaptist Historical Papers, Vol. 2, No. 4, 
July, 1898, referring to the ‘‘Split’’ in Fork Church, Dayie County, he 
says: ‘‘In 1832 the church passed through the anti-mission struggle, 
which took away nearly half the members. The anti-mission element 
was very bitter, and although in the minority they tried to hold the 
church, but failed. William Thompson, the clerk, went off with the 
opposition and declared that the church should never see the old records, 
and they never did ”’ 


An Account of the Split. 15 


CHAPTER II. 


Time oF THE Diviston—Cuances AFTER THE SPLIT— 
DirFicunty in Finpine a Name. 


The unfortunate division did not take place all at once, nor 
in any one year. The first Association to divide was the 
Kehukee, in 1827. The Abbott’s Creek Union, in 1832. 
And others at various dates, till 1836. Elder Coffey (anti- 
mission), in his History of the “Regular Baptists,” says: 
“The strifes and contentions that caused the division were in 
progress from 1832 to 1840, before the final separation was 
complete.” 

So the time in which the split was being consummated, 
from first to last, was about thirteen years. At the time of 
which we write, there were many changes. In some in- 
stances they were in the majority and held the property, in 
others our people held it, and people went from one church to 
another, some coming from them to us, while some went 
from our churches to them.” 


'Since writing the foregoing, ‘‘Outlines of Illinois Baptist History”’ 
has come to hand, and as a matter of history, the following is copied: 


ANTI-MISSIONISM, 


“December 1, 1817, John M. Perk, a strong missionary, arrived at St. 
Louis from Connecticut, and the same month Daniel Parker came from 
Tennessee to Crawford county, Illinois. In 1822, April 30, Mr. Peck re- 
moved to Illinois, settling at Rcck Spring, sixteen miles out from St. 
Louis, on the Vincennes road. Mr. Parker became pastor of two Illinois 

churches belonging to the Wabash (Ind.) Association, and through one 
of them secured the passage of an anti-misxion resolution by the Asso- 
ciation in 1819, which he used asa means of influencing the Illinois 
churches on the other side of the State. In 1822 it divided the Wabash 
Association 

* * * Jn 1824 the Illinois Association becameanti-mission. Of the 
nine Illinois Baptist Associations organized before 1830 all except the 

Friends to Humanity were anti-mission. But of the nineteen Associa- 
tions organized in the 30’s only six were anti-mission. In 1826 Daniel 
Parker publ'shed his ‘‘Two Seed’’ doctrine. which made a division in the 
anti-mission ranks and caused him in 1836 to emigrate to Texas. From 
that time the anti-mission influence began to subside.”’ 


2For some time after the split, we know not how long, they did not 
baptize one coming from a Missionary church, because it might have 
been the same preacher baptized many of those composing both churches. 
Possibly the pastor of the Missionary church might have baptized the 


16 An Account of the Split. 


But after they had succeeded in inducing some of our 
churches and associations to divide, they found an unthought 
of difficulty. Before the split we were all one body and 
known simply as Baptists. Now there are two bodies of 
Baptists, and one of these is a new body. Never had there 
been anything known like it. 

It is said that Elder Mark Bennett went with them at the 
time of the split and remained several years; then his mind 
underwent a change, and he came back to his old love. In 
1854 he published a ‘‘Review of the History of the Kehukee 
Association,” in which he tells us about the name which they 
finally adopted. We quote from the Review, pp. 7 and 8: 

“About that time (1826) two or three of her (Kehukee) 
preachers drafted some ‘Resolutions,’ in which was bespoken 
for their denomination the name of ‘Reformed Baptists in 
North Carolina.’ In the course of two years they became 
dissatisfied with this name and abandoned it. For some 
time they called themselves alternately, “The Old Baptists,’ 
‘The Old Sort of Baptists,’ ‘Baptists of the Old Stamp,’ “The 
Old Side Baptists,’ ete. * * * If we recollect the time well, 
during the period of 1832 to 1835 a meeting of a few Anti- 
mission Baptists was held in Maryland, some distance from 
the city of Baltimore, at a place called Black Rock; at which 
meeting they resolved to be known among themselves by the 
name of ‘Old School Baptists.’ With this name the Kehukee 
people at first were not well satisfied. But contemporane- 
ously, or nearly so, with the Black Rock movement, a month- 
ly, with the caption of ‘Signs of the Times,’ was issued from 
New Vernon, in New York, Orange County; which paper 
unceremoniously dubbed the Anti-mission Baptists with the 
name of ‘Old School Baptists.’ 


pastor of the Anti-mission church—so his baptism then was all right. 
To have done then, as they do now, rebaptize them, would have placed 
them in an awkward position. which they could not well explain. They 
regarded our baptism then as good as theirs. But just when, or where. 
or how, it began to lose its validity, perhaps they themselves would be 
puzzled to tell. At any rate, our baptism now is wholly unscriptural 
and therefore invalid, they being judges. 


An Account of the Split. 17 


“After some murmuring and delay, the MKehukeeans 
adopted it, and became well pleased with it. More recently, 
say within twelve or eighteen months, we apprehend they 
are about to throw off ‘Old School’ and take the name of 
‘Primitive Baptists.’ ” 

Thus we see that they were something like twenty-five 
years before they were enabled to adopt a name. 

In November, 1871, the Biblical Recorder, in reply to an 
article quoted from the Primitive Baptist, an anti-mission 
paper, said editorially: “It is true that this sect is called by 
many names. Its own ministers have not been able to agree 
on their name. They call themselves ‘Ironsides, Hardshells, 
Square-toed Baptists, Broad-brimmed Baptists, Old-Sort-of- 
Baptists, Old School Baptists, Hard-Rhined Baptists, Pre- 
destinarian Baptists, Kehukees, Primitive Baptists, and some, 
not ashamed of their true paternity, call themselves Osbourn- 
ites. Is it any marvel that outsiders find difficulty in nam- 
ing those who have never been able to name themselves 2” 

If they are the “Old Baptists,” indeed, why all this ado 
about a name? They called us “missioners” or ‘‘missionaries,” 
which has somewhat been accepted as a distinction. But all 
old Baptist histories published long before the split bears the 
plain, simple “Baptist,” just what we call ourselves now and 
have ever since long before the split. 

They had to do something to deceive the people into be- 
heving that they were and are still the Old Baptists. We 
venture the assertion that they can not produce any Baptist 
history or other Baptist document printed before 1825, that 
has any of the above names. The fact is, that their old 
minutes did not for many, many years print “Primitive” in 
the title as they do now. The Brier Creek and Mayo Asso- 
ciations did not. The Abbott’s Creek Union Association 
did not till 1879.° 

3 At the session held that year the following item was adopted: ‘‘The 
Association agrees that the words Primitive Baptist be added to the third 
article of the act of Convention of 1825.’”’ This was an afterthought. 
Butitseems strange that they waited fifty-four years to make the change. 


wae why add ‘‘primitive”’ at all if they continued the same as before the 
split. 


18 An Account of the Split. 


Every one at all acquainted with Baptist history knows 
that in all our denominational literature that nothing but the 
plain, simple “Baptist” was used before the split, just as we 
use it now. They were accommodating, indeed, to give us 
a distinctive name (Missionary), and then adopt the one 
(Primitive) they liked best. But we shall see further on 
who are following what was practiced before the split, as 
well as the teaching of the Bible. 


An Account of the Split. 19 


CHAPTER III. 


Tue Number tHat Went Out From Us—Tur Men Wuo 
Lep In THE SpLir—Resouvutions or Keuuxrer Assocta- 
TION — CovETOUSNESS, THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF THE 
Drvist0n. 


The division effected was only partial, for it by no means 
carried off anything like an equal part of our numbers. 
Elder George W. Purefoy said:* “The great body of the 
Baptists of the United States went on as they had done before 
(before the split). The anti-mission party, calling them- 
selves ‘the Primitive Baptists,’ are but a small portion of the 
denomination, and yet it has been said that the Regular or 
Missionary Baptists have seceded from the Primitive Bap- 
tists! Who ever heard before of a body of four-fifths seced- 
ing from one-fifth ?” 

Elder John Culpepper, agent of the Baptist State Con- 
vention, made his report to the Corresponding Secretary in 
1834, two years after the split in the Abbott’s Creek Union 
Association, out of which the Liberty Association was formed. 
He said in part: “I have traveled 350 days; preached 233 
sermons. We have ascertained that there are in our State, 
27 associations; and three others partly in our State and 
partly in South Carolina. Nineteen of these associations 
approve of and encourage the institutions of the day.’” 

Thus we see again that a minority left the great body of 
their brethren. Twenty-seven associations—19 remained in 
the work as they had been doing—8 went out, a fraction less 
than thirty per cent in North Carolina. 

This result was secured, it is said, through the influence of 
afewmen. The spirit of opposition. was never spontaneous ; 
it was wrought up by a few shrewd leaders. Elders James 


1 History of Sandy Creek Association, page 59. 


2The institutions of the day referred to are: Baptist State Convention, 
Mission and Tract Societies, Bible Societies, Sunday Schools, etc. 


20 An Account of the Split. 


Osbourn of the Baltimore Association and John Stadler of 
the County Line and Joshua Lawrence in the East, contrib- 
uted more to the result in North Carolina than any dozen 
others. And it is quite likely true that Elder Osbourn’s 
influence carried Stadler and Lawrence. 

Again we quote from the Biblical Recorder—an editorial— 
November, 1871: “The Rev. James Osbourn began to preach 
in the South and to feed the fires of covetousness by declaim- 
ing against ‘money hunters.’ He denounced all publications 
except his own, and all collections except for himself, and 
obtained subscriptions for his books before they were writ- 
ten. Elder Joshua Lawrence and many others were led 
astray.” 

The Kehukee Association was induced, after “much speak- 
ing,” to “discard all Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, 
and Theological Seminaries, and the practices heretofore 
resorted to for their support, in begging money from the pub- 
lic; and if any persons should be among us as agents of any 
such societies, we hereafter discountenance them in those 
practices, and if under the character of a minister of the 
Gospel, we will not invite them into our pulpits.” 

We do not have to go far to discover that the foregoing was 
prompted by a spirit of covetousness, for the same associa- 
tion, in 1834, five years after the split, said: “If any min- 
ister, although he may be a missionary without the bounds 
of our association, comes among us to preach the Gospel and 
not to make collections, we do not reject him.” 

And this teaching has, all through these years, been so con- 
genial to the flesh that it has been accepted by the children 
in such homes, thus growing up and developing a bitter spirit 
toward all our work. 


An Account of the Split. — . 21 


CHAPTER IV. 


Srrone Opposition to Mission Worx—TuHe Apostles 
Sent Out as Missionaries BY THE CuurcH at ANTIOCH 
—Gon’s Purrose—His Guminc Hanp—Euper Wart- 
son’s VIEW. 


Our anti-mission brethren claim that mission work as was 
at first developed one hundred years ago and as now being 
carried on, is not of God, but “‘man’s work.” 

Elder Coffey, an authority among them in the West, taking 
a very decided stand against us, said: “I wish to be under- 
stood to mean the modern system of missions, or men-made 
institutions, and not Bible missionaries.” Just as though 
we were not Bible missionaries because they reject our meth- 
ods of work! 

Our Baptist people from the days of Christ to the present 
time have always been missionary in spirit and practice; 
though at times held back by a spirit of lethargy. The Anti- 
mission Baptists claim that the system of modern missions is 
too modern, and ought therefore to be rejected. But the mis- 
sionary spirit is no new thing; it is old as the church. We 
learn that the early Christians “went everywhere preaching 
the word.” 

Paul and Barnabas were sent owt as missionaries. This 
work may not have been done in the same way or under the 
same name that we do it. As time wore on, great changes 
took place, yet it was really the work of spreading the Gospel. 
It was carried on according to the plan best adapted to their 
surroundings. 

After the Romish hierarchy was fully established, our 
people were driven back, tortured in almost every conceivable 
way; and vast numbers of them were put to death. Thus dur- 
ing the hundreds of years which found them in the wilderness, 
it was impossible for them to do anything in the way of send- 
ing out the gospel as we do it now. 


22 An Account of the Split. 


We are fully persuaded that the movement usually denomi- 
nated as modern missions was wholly of the Lord and was 
under His guiding hand. If the question should arise, “Why 
did God wait so long to give the gospel to the heathen?’ We 
might answer, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, 
neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” It was 
“according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things 
after the counsel of His own will.” 

The children of Israel must remain in Egypt four hundred 
and thirty years, notwithstanding they were His peculiar 
people. Most of this time they were oppressed and most 
cruelly treated, yet they must remain till His purpose is ac- 
complished. 

From the time that Adam fell a Saviour was promised ; yet 
it was about four thousand years before His advent. We 
might ask, if He was “a light to lighten the Gentiles and the 
glory of His people Israel,” why was it so long before He 
made His appearance? “Even so, Father; for so it seemed 
good in Thy sight.” 

God’s guiding hand was in it all. But the time was about 
to be ushered in when a new era in mission work was to be 
inaugurated. Carey’s zeal and earnestness was not of his own 
volition, but of the Holy Spirit. He and his people were so 
powerfully wrought upon, that it was at Nottingham, in 
1784, an Association of ministers resolved to set apart an 
hour on the first Monday evening in every month for the re- 
vival of religion, and for the extension of Christ’s kingdom 
in the world. This resolution was kept up for about seven 
years. In the spring of 1791 the matter began to take shape. 
In the following spring Mr. Carey preached his memorable 
sermon at the annual Association held at Nottingham. In all 
these movements the spirit of the Lord seemed to be directing ; 
for it is said, “In agreeing upon a plan we had no difficulties 
to encounter from diversity of opinion, for in everything of 
importance there was a happy unanimity.” Who but the 


An Account of the Split. 23 


Holy Spirit could give this? In the meantime Mr. John 
Thomas had embraced the gospel, about 1783, had gone out as 
a surgeon of the Oxford East Indiaman; and while in Bengal 
felt a call to preach the Gospel to the natives. Under his 
ministry he had assurances that three of the natives had been 
led to Christ. 

In 1792 he returned to London and was interested in se- 
euring a co-laborer with him in this work. Mr. Carey was 
willing to accompany him. ‘Thus it seems that the Lord had 
prepared the way and designed these men to go. The funds 
necessary to help them to their destination were soon in hand, 
for the people gave and gave gladly. 

Preceding this, was Roger Williams, in 1636, declaring for 

soul liberty. The little State of Rhode Island was secured to 
him and those who should choose to reside within her borders, 
as a place where they could “worship God according to the 
dictates of their own consciences.” But it was not secured to 
the whole country till 1783, about the beginning of this move- 
ment in England. 
- Was not the Lord preparing both a place and a people here 
that should contribute largely to the salvation of the world ? 
This land of the free has conduced to the rapid upbuilding of 
the Lord’s kingdom in our midst. Because of soul-liberty our 
Baptist Zion has attained a phenomenal growth. The Lord 
has given our people wealth and numbers; He has also called 
many to go out from our midst to heathen lands bearing the 
glad news to a lost world. 

Who can recount these signal evidences of God’s presence 
in this work and then doubt that the modern missionary enter- 
prise had its birth in Heaven? If this premise is correct, 
then our Anti-mission brethren are not the Primitive Baptists, 
but simply an off-shoot from the Regular Baptists; for, they 
disregard all these indications as from God and charge that it 
is wholly of men. 

Neither can they claim the old records as sustaining them. 
From the organization of this work in England, in 1792, up 


24 An Account of the Split. 


to about 1826, there was no division of sentiment on the sub- 
ject of missions (except the Kehukee Association, which di- 
vided in 1827), till 1832. 

But even the Kehukee Association, anti-mission that she 
now is, was at one time in favor of missions. 

She contributed as follows to the General Meeting of Cor- 
respondence: $3, in 1812; $5, in 1813; and $5, in 1814. 
Here is another record of hers: “Bro. Bennett Barrow was 
appointed the standing secretary of this Association, to cor- 
respond with the Board of Foreign Missions.” This, with 
others, shows that at one time she was thoroughly in accord 
with us in mission work. But since 1827 she has persistently 
opposed this work. 

We find as early as 1772 that the Philadelphia Association 
paid money to traveling preachers (missionaries). The As- 
sociation voted a vote of thanks with the interest on Associa- 
tion funds, together with £6 more to Morgan Edwards “for 
his services in traveling and visiting the churches to the south- 
ward.” * 

Elder John Stadler, who was conspicuous in the division 
of the County Line Association, paid one dollar to the BrBLe 
Soctety and rirry cents for Home Misstons to an AGENT 
of the Boarp.” 

Elder James Osbourn was perhaps the leading spirit in 
bringing about the split. Yet this item from the record tells 
us where he once was: “In 1817 ‘a committee was appointed 
for Domestic Missionary Affairs,’ and Brethren O. B. Brown, 
Jamrs Osspourn and Spencer H. Cone were appointed as 
Home Missionaries.” James Osbourn appointed a MIssIon- 
ary! He was rHEn a Primitive Baptist. 

We quote from an able work by Elder John M. Watson, 
entitled “Old Baptist Test,” pages 181-182, one of their best 
and most conservative men. Writing of “Errors found exist- 
ing among the Old Order of Baptists,” he says: “I was much 


1 Minutes of Philadelphia Association. 
* History of Sandy Creek Association, page 56. 


An Account of the Split. 25 


surprised as well as mortified that they evinced so little con- 
cern about the unbrought ‘other sheep’ which the Saviour said 
He must bring. They lay great stress on these words of the 
Saviour, but do not read other things which He connected 
with the bringing them in as they ought to do. I heard but 
few prayers for the sending forth of laborers into His field; 
nor did I see much concern in any way about them. The 
Lord’s foreknowledge, predestination, calling, ete., have the 
same relation to them, in principle at least, that they had at 
the beginning—the same to the last one which He will bring 
that they had to the first. * * * They preach well about 
the “effectual call,” as they term it, but not so well about the 
outward one. * * * JI felt inclined to ask these orthodox 
Christians if they believed that any of the “other sheep” are 
now among the heathen nations, and if they were watching 
the providence of God in regard to them. Moreover, if they 
felt under any obligations to search them out; to pray unto 
the Lord to bring them in; and to encourage, aid and send out 
any who may feel called of the Lord to preach to them. * * * 
I really fear should any one profess a call of this kind, he 
would not receive the fellowship and assistance which he 
would have been entitled to. Thus I fear they do not act as 
did those who heeded all the commandments of the Lord.” 

This position taken by Elder Watson is impregnable, it is 
unanswerable, because it is the truth. He is with us on this. 
It is just what we believe and constitutes one of the great 
_ barriers between us and them. We believe it to be a duty im- 
posed by the great Head of the church to give the Gospel to 
the whole world—they believe that we have nothing to do 
with it, that God will raise up men to preach to the heathen 
when He wants them. 


26 An Account of the Split. 


CHAPTER V. 


AnTI-MIssion Baptists ARE NOW OpposEp TO Revivau 
Meerincs—Noruine Sarp Asout Oprosine Sucu Mexr- 
incs Wuen Tury Went Our From Us—Baptists ap 
Great Revivats Berore THE Sprit—In THE KENUKEE 
Association Tury Invirep PEorLe To BE PRAYED FOR— 
GrorGE Pore Baprizep Larce NuMBERS. 


Our Anti-mission brethren are very unlike the Primitive 
Baptists in their decided opposition to revival meetings. We 
never hear them pray for a revival of religion or know of 
them making a protracted effort. Who ever hears one of 
their preachers exhorting the unconverted to repent ? 

Before the split our Baptist brethren did this, and they had 
glorious revivals and large ingatherings into their churches. 
Even the historic old Kehukee, now so decidedly opposed to 
revival measures, was at one time much in favor with them; 
they prayed for them and otherwise greatly encouraged them. 

We quote from Burkitt and Read’s History, pages 145- 
146, “The ministers used frequently, at the close of worships, 
to sing a spiritual song suited to the occasion, and go through 
the congregation, and shake hands with people while singing. 
* * * The ministers usually, at the close of preaching, 
would tell the congregation, that if there were any persons 
who felt themselves lost and condemned, under the guilt and 
burden of their sins, that if they would come near the stage, 
and kneel down, they would pray for them. Shame at first 
kept many back, but as the work increased, numbers appa- 
rently under strong conviction would come and fall down be- 
fore the Lord at the feet of the ministers, and crave an in- 
terest in their prayers. Sometimes twenty or thirty at a 
time. And at some Union Meetings, two or three hundred 
would come, and try to come as near as they could. This 
very much engaged the ministers, and many confessed that 


An Account of the Split. 27 


the Lord heard the prayers of His ministers, and had reason 
to hope their souls were relieved from the burden of their 
sins, through the blood of Christ. It had a powerful effect 
on the spectators to see their wives, their husbands, children, 
neighbors, ete, so solicitous for the salvation of their souls; 
and was sometimes a means of their conviction. Many ladies 
of quality, at times were so powerfully wrought on as to come 
and kneel down in the dust in their silks to be prayed for. 
The same history, page 153, says: “At an Union Meeting at 
Parker’s Meeting-house,.August, 1803, it was supposed there 
were 4,000 people. The weather proved very rainy on Sun- 
day. There was a stage erected in the meeting-house yard; 
and at about half-past 11 o’clock Elder Burkitt ascended the 
stage to preach, and it was expected, from the appearance of 
the clouds, it would rain every moment, and before he was 
done preaching it did so. Yet, notwithstanding, the numer- 
ous congregation still kept together; and although every ef- 
fort was used to shun the rain, by umbrellas, carriages, 
blankets, ete., yet we believe one thousand people were ex- 
posed to the rain without any shelter; and some crying, some 
convulsed to the ground, some begging the ministers to pray 
for them; and composedly stood and received the falling 
shower without ever being dispersed. And it is not only at 
particular times, but blessed be God, these meetings are gener- 
ally blessed.” * 

Benedict, vol. 2, page 104, says of the revival spirit in this 
_ Association about 1801: “It began to enjoy a refreshing 
season, and for a few years following was blessed with a share 
in that remarkable revival, which prevailed most powerfully 
and extensively through North Carolina and many other 
States: so that in the course of two years from the commence- 
ment of the revival there were 1,500 persons baptized in the 
churches belonging to this Association.” 


'Burkitt and Read’s History from which this quotation is taken is the 
Historv of Kehukee Association, now anti-mission. and was printed in 
1803, twenty-four vears before she turned against missions, Sunday 
Schools, Protracted Meetings, ete. 


28 An Account of the Split. 


Strange as it may seem io people living now, there is not 
one word anywhere, in all the old church records or Baptist 
histories examined, where they opposed revival measures at 
first. In fact, such a thing seems never to have been thought 
of. But, on the other hand, they carried them on for some 
time. 

That they ever should have taken such a stand in regard to 
revival measures is beyond comprehension, unless, in their 
opposition to us in almost everything else, they thought that 
they ought to oppose this measure also. 

Such a thing as taking a stand against revivals or protracted 
meetings was never, never heard of amongst Baptists until 
our Anti-mission brethren separated from us in 1827—1840. 
Before the split in Baptist ranks they had such revivals and 
ingatherings as few, if any now living, ever witnessed. And, 
we might add, that they did not take the stand against pro- 
tracted meetings till some time after they went out from us, 
as has been given us by old people who lived at the time, and 
after the division in Baptist ranks. 

Deacon Peter Riley, of Tom’s Creek church, our old home 
church, who died some twenty or more years ago, was our 
nearest neighbor, as far back as memory serves us; was a 
member of Tom’s Creek church when the split occurred. We 
remember well to have heard him say at one time that after 
the split they had preaching one night at Samuel Styers’ 
residence, near Denton, and after the sermon penitents were 
invited, and that three persons presented themselves for 
prayer. This statement can be vouched for and names of 
penitents given. 

Bro. Robert L. Masten, upwards of seventy years of age, 
a member of Waughtown church, brought up under that in- 
fluence and held with them till he was converted, said, in 
substance: “Elder George McNeely, of Virginia, preached 
several sermons that he heard, and at the close he would ex- 
tend an invitation to the unconverted who wished to be prayed 
for to come and give him their hand.” He said this was be- 


An Account of the Split. 29 


fore the Civil War, about 1855-1857, as nearly as he could 
recollect. 

Bro. Masten said further: “That before he was married, 
about 1847 or 1848, Elder Henry Tatum, after preaching a 
sermon, came down from the pulpit and gave a warm exhorta- 
tion, and Betsy Crews knelt for prayer, and that Elder Tatum 
offered an earnest prayer, of considerable length, for her con- 
version.” 

Bro. B. D. McKaughan, of Rockford, Surry County, N. 
C., writes his observations as he recollects those events in his 
boyhood days. He is now an old and respected citizen. We 
condense as follows from his letter: 

“My father moved to Ashe, now Alleghany County. We 
lived on a plantation in sight of Piney Creek Meeting-house— 
Old Primitive Baptists, as they call themselves. I was in 
my fourteenth year. I think it was in October, 1848, they 
commenced a meeting at the above-named church, which 
lasted nearly two weeks. Father, being a licensed preacher 
from old Abbott’s Creek church, took an active part in the 
meeting—did some of the preaching. They would have 
meetings at the neighbors’ houses after they broke up at the 
church. They then moved the meeting to Elk Creek Meeting- 
house, some four or five miles away, and the meeting lasted 
there eight or ten days. I do not remember the names of the 
other churches to which they went. The meetings lasted 
about six weeks at all the churches. 

“As the result of all these meetings my father witnessed the 
baptism of seventy-two. I think it was the next Sunday I 
saw twenty-eight baptized.” 

A Mrs. Morgan (given name forgotten), of Randolph 
County, now nearly eighty years old, gives the following in- 
formation: She has seen the “Old Baptists” call for mourn- 
ers or seekers to come and be prayed for at a meeting held at 
Old Unity Meeting-house (long since extinct) and some went 
forward. She remembers that one Polly Johnson was a 


30 An Account of the Split. 


mourner and went away from church screaming and crying 
aloud. Elder Philip Snider (for many years the Moderator, 
and leading pastor in the Abbott’s Creek Union Association) 
was assisted by Louis Snider, Solomon Snider (all brothers 
in the flesh) and Asahel Peacock. (Solomon Snider left 
them about ten years after the split). 

She states, further, that she was concerned during said re- 
vival, and made a profession, when quite young, and that 
Elder Philip Snider baptized her. 

From the above reminiscences, it seems quite clear that 
there was little, if any, opposition to revival meetings for 
some time after the split. Some of the above observations 
were made some twenty or thirty years after their separation 
from us. Nearly all the old church records tell of their oppo- 
sition to the Baptist State Convention, Sunday schools, Bible 
Societies and other “institutions of the day,” but not one word 
seen anywhere in opposition to revivals—in fact, it is pretty 
clear that there was none. This opposition has not been in 
vogue more than about sixty or perhaps seventy years. 

We might add right here that at most of the old Baptist 
churches there were tents, long since gone, where the people 
camped during the great revival meetings then held. These 
tents were at old Abbott’s Creek, Lick Creek and even at 
Mount Tabor, in Randolph County, where the session was 
being held in 1832, when the Abbott’s Creek Union Associa- 
tion divided, where the majority went into Hardshellism, the 
minority that stood for the organized work as then being de- 
veloped were denied a part in the proceedings of the body, re- 
tired, said Elder Benjamin Lanier, who was present, and 
went into a tent and organized the Liberty Association. 


An Account of the Split. 31 


CHAPTER VI. 


A Departure From Baptist Usace—Tuey Oppose Mrints- 
TERIAL Epucation—Young Mryisters Epucatep ix 
Enetanp—TuHe Puimaperpur1a Association Encovur- 
AGED IT. 


In preceding chapters we have shown that our anti-mission 
brethren have departed from Baptist usage before the split in 
some very important particulars. They are very decidedly 
opposed to the education of young ministers, called of God, as 
a part of our work. But long before there were any Anti- 
mission Baptists, the Baptists favored ministerial education. 
They claim, that while ministerial students are recelving an 
education that souls are dying and, therefore, they ought to 
go at once. : 

But our Saviour did not take that view, when he kept His 
disciples with Him for three years. Neither did our brethren 
in the years gone by. 

As early as the year 1250, our Baptist brethren had schools 
where their young men called of God were educated, being 
supported by contributions from the churches.* 

Dr. John Rippon, of England, in a “Brief essay towards 
an History of the Baptist Academy,” throws much light upon 
this important subject. Hear him: “We had at that time 
literary men, whose abilities reflected honor on themselves, 
and on the cause they espoused ; and of these, some who ranked 
high among the learned were disposed to teach. Such, how- 
ever, was the unsettled state of affairs in the protectorate, and 
so great the persecutions of our brethren and other non-con- 
formists afterwards, from the Restoration, in 1660, till the 
glorious Revolution, in 1688, that we must not be surprised if 
we find no splendid seminaries of learning among the Bap- 
tists, or any other Protestant Dissenters in those early days. 


‘Orchard, Vol. I, p. 158. 


32 An Account of the Split. 


Indeed several of the ejected or silenced ministers, in dif- 
ferent counties took under their care a few young men of 
promising abilities: for the ministry, and, without regard to 
our distinguishing sentiments, assisted them im their prepara- 
tory studies for sacred service. It is not easy for me 
to say with precision how early in the last century our learned 
brethren in this country began, among themselves, to educate 
their juniors for the work of the ministry.” 

Again Dr. Rippon says:* ‘That the ministers and mes- 
sengers of more than one hundred baptized congregations in 
England and Wales met, in a General Assembly at London, in 
September, 1689, to consult the good of the whole denomina- 
tion. 

At this Convention they resolved to raise a fund or stock 
for the advantage of churches who were not able to maintain 
their own pastors or teachers, etc., and for assisting members 
of churches who had promising gifts, were sound in funda- 
mentals, and inclined to study, in attaining to the knowledge 
of the Latin, Greek and Hebrew.”’ From the above it will 
be perceived that our brethren engaged in ministerial educa- 
tion at as early a date as was possible for them to do so. 

They were not allowed by their enemies to engage in such 
work; and so desirous were they to do something along this 
line that before they could project colleges and seminaries, 
they taught young men for the ministry in a private way. 

Let us now follow our brethren across the Atlantic and see 
them in the new world. The Philadelphia Association, the 
oldest on the continent, was constituted in the year 1707. 
For the year 1722, one hundred and ten years before the split, 
it was proposed that the churches make inquiry among them- 
selves, if they have any young persons hopeful for the minis- 
try, and inclinable for learning; and if they have, to give 
notice of it to Mr. Abel Morgan before the first of November, 
that he might recommend such to the Academy on Mr. Hollis’ 


Tie eat lS 


2 Baptist Register, Vol. II, pp. 415-416. 


An Account of the Split. 33 


account. (Minutes of Philadelphia Association, page 27.) 
Eyen at that age, Mr. Hollis was so much interested that he 
was to pay the bills. 

At the sessions for 1756-57 we find this same Association 
encouraging education. At the session for 1764 it was agreed 
to inform the churches to which we respectively belong that, 
inasmuch as a charter is obtained in Rhode Island govern- 
ment, toward erecting a Baptist College, the churches should 
be liberal in contributing towards carrying the same into exe- 
cution. In October, 1766, we find this: “Agreed to recom- 
mend warmly to our churches the interest of the college, for 
which a subscription is opened all over the continent. This 
college has been set on foot upwards of a year, and has now in 
it three promising youths under the tuition of President Man- 
ning.” Two thoughts here are noticeable, viz: “Agreed” ; 
and “warmly agreed to recommend.” 

A subscription is opened all over the continent. They were 
heart and soul in favor of ministerial education and had never 
been disturbed with a thought of anti-ism. 

But why multiply authorities? These are only a few of 
what might be produced. 


34 An Account of the Split. 


CHAPTER VII. 


Antr-mission Baptists Opposr Srarep SALARY FOR Pas- 
TOR—SCRIPTURE TEACHING ON THE SUBJECT—ELDER 
Joun M. Warson’s View. 


Our anti-mission brethren are very much opposed to an un- 
derstanding between church and pastor, relative to a salary. 
They speak of such as a “hireling” ministry. With them 
there must be no agreement as to what the pastor must have 
for his support. It is strange that this should be so in regard 
to pastoral support and not practiced in any other calling in 
life. 

There is just as much reason for a carpenter amongst the 
anti-mission brethren being asked to build a new meeting- 
house and let the brethren pay him as they say preachers 
ought to be paid—just what the brethren think he ought to 
have. How many of them would take a contract on such con- 
dition? Not one. They ought not be asked to do it. It is 
not good business. And yet if ministers insist on knowing 
what they are to receive for their work, they are at once 
branded as “money hunters” or preaching for “filthy luere.” 
O for shame! 

We all know that the New Testament Scriptures don’t say 
in so many words that a stipulated amount may be mentioned, 
but we contend that it is not contrary to Scripture teaching 
on this subject. 

Paul says, “Have I committed an offense in abasing myself 
that ye might be exalted, because I preached unto you the 
Gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages 
of them, to do you service.” “The laborer is worthy of his 
reward.” 

“The workman is worthy of his meat.” 

“The laborer is worthy of his hire.’ It seems that — 
“wages,” “reward,” and “hire” are not contrary to the genius 


An Account of the Split. 35 


of New Testament teaching on this subject, but fully in accord 
with it. The trouble with our Anti brethren is that they have 
made a hobby of this, while they are receiving money in hand- 
shaking and on the sly generally. If a church or churches 
ought to support a pastor, there can be nothing wrong in 
understanding what would be sufficient to support him. In 
that case, the church just knows what is expected and there- 
fore has something to work to. 

Elder John M. Watson, one of their preachers in “Old 
Baptist Test,” has an article under the caption of “Ministerial 
Deviations,” from which I wish to quote. He says: ‘The 
Scriptural relations between pastor and church is not regarded 
by us as it should be. Our ministers do not teach the churches 
their duties towards themselves. Human pride constrains 
them to shun to declare the counsel of God on the subject; be- 
cause so many are preaching at fixed rates per sermon, per 
month, or per year, they forego their just rights, as ordained 
of God, rather than seem like such are. These have not only 
caused the way of truth to be evil spoken of, but our ministers 
to deviate from the line of duty. The plain commandments 
and exhortations of the Lord have been left unpreached, until 
some of our churches—judging from their conduct—have for- 
gotten that these duties are enjoined in their Bibles. This 
deviation is mutual; it is difficult to say which party is most 
blameable ; one fails to teach and exhort, and the other to per- 
form. 

“When the word of God is plainly, faithfully and frequently 
preached, it will bring forth fruit in circumcised hearts. The 
gross and palpable neglect of pastors in teaching their flocks 
the plain precepts of the Bible, revealed by the Holy Spirit, 
and recorded by the Evangelists for their benefit, is the cause 
of so little fruit from that division of the word of the Lord, 
abounding to the credit of our churches.” 

After quoting all the Scriptures bearing upon this subject, 
he then adds: “The preacher does not become a beggar until 


36 An Account of the Split. 


his demands transcend his Scriptural rights, nor a hireling 
until his wages exceed Bible rights. While defending and 
maintaining his just pastoral rights, he is no beggar, cap in 
hand, beseeching his brethren for some poor pittance or other, 
but a dignified, independent asserter of his just claims, and 
should be so regarded by all who have ears to hear the com- 
mandments of the Lord, or a heart to practice them. * * * 
Preachers must speak out on this subject, not on their own 
authority, but on the Lord’s; not in their own words, but in 
the plain, strong ones of the Bible; not as religious beggars 
of the day, but as faithful pastors. The correction of this 
error, now causing so many hearts to mourn, must, after all, 
begin in the pulpit, which I affirm can be done if there be 
grace among the hearers.” 

This sounds strangely coming as it does from such an unex- 
pected source. But it is based upon the word of God and 
can not be shaken. He charges error upon his people in this. 
No one of our own denomination has, so far as I know, 
written more pointedly upon this subject. No one would sus- 
pect him being an Anti-mission Baptist preacher from read- 
ing the above deliverances. But he was. 

According to his position on the support of the ministry we 
are carrying out the instructions of the New Testament more 
nearly than they. Therefore we must be Primitive or real 
Bible Baptists, instead of them. 


An Account of the Split. 37 


CHAPTER. VIII. 


Opposition To Sunpay Scuoors—Baptists Hap THEM 
BrErorE THE SpLir—Counry Line Associrarion Encour- 
AGED TuHEemM—ArrEeRwarps THry Opposr TuEem anp Br- 
come New Baptists. 


How there ever could have been open opposition to teaching 
the people the word of God is more than can be known now. 
Can it be a sin for one to stand before a class and teach God’s 
precious truth? Is the Lord displeased with those who teach 
or those taught? We think not, when perhaps seventy-five to 
ninety per cent of those coming into our churches are from 
the Sunday school. Moses evidently believed in teaching the 
children. (Deut. 6:5-9.) After exhorting them to love the 
Lord God with all the heart, and with the soul, he added: 
“And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in 
thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy 
children,” ete. 

There have been many foolish and unwise things said about 
this ereat work by our Anti-mission brethren. They have 
treated the Sunday school and its work as though it were an 
engine of the devil. But such a thing as abuse of this institu- 
tion was unknown till our brethren split off and set up opposi- 
tion of this work.* 

The County Line Association, which went out from us, was 
at one time heartily in sympathy with this great and good 
work, and was enthusiastic in its support. 


1Deacon John Teague. of Old Abbott’s Creek church, in his old age, 
told the author that he was born August 18, 1815; and was therefore about 
seventeen years old when the split took place in the old church. He 
said that he attended Sunday School at Abbott’s Creek regularly before 
the split there. He recollected well that the large meeting house would 
sometimes be nearly full of Sunday School scholars. 

About the time of the division in the church the people were gather- 
ing for school as usual on the Sabbath. Someone who knew, remarked, 
‘You need not go to school to-day, the doors are nailed up and you can 

“not getin.’’ All of which was found to be true. That ended the Sun- 
day School work in that house. 


38 An Account of the Split. 


At the session of this body in August, 1821, a short while 
before the split, they adopted a Circular Letter, commending, 
in the strongest terms possible, the Sunday school work. But 
let us give a quotation from the Circular: 

“We beg leave to suggest for your consideration a few plain 
observations on the Christian education of your children. * * * 
Contrast in your minds the appearance of two neighborhoods, 
in one of which the children have shared a Christian educa- 
tion; in the other they have not. In the former, as a general 
thing, you will find them submissive to authority, dutiful to 
parents, respectful to old age, affectionate. 

“Here family altars are erected, and on them, morning and 
evening, is offered the incense of prayer. In the latter you 
find them ungovernable, undutiful to parents, disrespectful to 
old age, saucy, Sabbath-breakers, profane. 

“Let there be stated periods which we will devote wholly to 
their instruction. And those of you, brethren who can afford 
no other time, we advise to teach them before and after the 
ordinary exercises of public worship (preaching). 

“Tt is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day? Then take 
them to the house of God with you and you will lessen one of 
the crying sins of the land, Sabbath-breaking. They may be 
taught also in Sunday schools, an institution which has been 
blessed of God to the salvation of many souls, both of chil- 
dren and parents—vwe earnestly solicit your attention to these 
schools, and beg you to establish one in every neighborhood. 
Though, in communicating instruction, you may think you are 
scattering but little seed, and that, too, in an unpromising soil, 
God may give it ‘deep root’ in the hearts of your children and 
your declining years may be solaced with the prospect of an 
abundant harvest. ‘Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou 
shalt find it after many days.’ ” 

Who can read these extracts and not see that they were 
heart and soul in favor of Sunday schools? Then, in ten or 
twelve years, they take a decided stand against this work: in 


. 


‘An Account of the Split. 39 


the face of all that they said in the Circular quoted from 
above, how could they do this? They were not in igno- 
rance as to the blessed influences diffused through these 
schools. They said the truth while pleading for the Sunday 
school. Were they sincere in the last step taken ? 

Of course they changed from what they were and became a 
new kind of Baptists, for there never had been seen such Bap- 
tists before the split. 


40 An Account of the Split. 


CHAPTER IX. 


Tuey are Deciininc IN Numbers anp Morar PowEr— 
Catucart’s Encycroprepia Gives Sratistics—Tue Bar- 
tist YEAR Boox, 1880—Exprer Jonun Cunprper’s Sra- 
tistics, 1834—ComparativE Sratistics KEuuKEE AND 
Cuowan Assocrations—Miami AssociaTIon IN Onto— 
Rep River Association, Kentucky—Assort’s CREEK 
Union Association, Norru Caroxra. 


Because of such decided, emphatic opposition to, and will- 
ful neglect of the means, which have been so signally blessed 
of God for the spread of the truth and consequent upbuilding 
of the Redeemer’s kingdom, our Anti-mission brethren have 
been on the decline numerically almost ever since they went 
out from us. 

“In 1844 the Baptist Almanac attempted to distinguish be- 
tween the Regular or Mission Baptists and those who op- 
posed missionary work in formal organizations for that pur- 
pose. The record of 1844 reported 184 Old-School Associa- 
tions, 1,622 churches, 900 ordained ministers, 2,374 bap- 
tized in the year preceding, and 61,162 members. 

“The Year Book for 1880 returns 900 Old-School churches, 
400 ordained ministers, and 40,000 members,—a loss of one- 
third in thirty-six years. The Old-School brethren have de- 
clined in numbers almost every year since they made the 
division.” * 

Elder John Culpeper, as agent of the Baptist State Con- 
vention of North Carolina, in making his report of work 
done in 1834, stated that there were 27 Associations in the 
State, 19 of which were in favor of mission work and 8 
were opposed. In the 19 Associations, 4,278 persons have 
been added by baptism during the last Associational year. 
Of the 8 anti-mission Associations, only 5 of these bodies pub- 


1Catheart’s Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 78. 


An Account of the Split. 41 


lish their numbers. One hundred and eighty have been bap- 
tized. With the deaths and exclusions, our opposing brethren 
appear, from their minutes for 1833, to have diminished, 
though the diminution was not large. The average increase in 
the 19 missionary bodies was 225, while in the 5 bodies which 
reported, they had 36. 

In 1805, the Kehukee Association divided. All the 
churches lying on the east side of the Roanoke River consti- 
tuted the Chowan Association. 

In 1806, Kehukee Association numbered 1,736. 

Jn 1806, Chowan Association numbered 1,839. 

In 1841, Kehukee Association numbered 1,200. 

In 1841, Chowan Association numbered 6,000. 

In 1880, Kehukee Association numbered 2,016. 

In 1880, Chowan Association numbered 11,058. ’ 

In Missouri, for the first ten years after the split, they had 
not decreased—but actually increased—the only instance of 
increase noted anywhere. But a comparison of the relative 
increase as to the Missionaries and Anti-missionaries will be 
both instructive and entertaining: 

“Tt is,” says the author, giving statistics, “an interesting 
fact that in 1836, one year after the division, the Baptists of 
Missouri numbered 8,723 and were divided as follows: Regu- 
lar or Missionary Baptists, 150 churches, 77 ministers, 5,357 
members; Anti-missionary Baptists, 80 churches, 49 minis- 
ters and 3,366 members. 

“In 1846, just ten years after, the Regulars numbered 292 
churches, 144 ministers and 15,331 members; and the Anti- 
missionary Baptists, 118 churches, 57 ministers and 4,336 
members.” 

In the following examples we see the sad fate of anti- 
mission churches: In Micmi Association, of Ohio, in 1836, 
nineteen anti-mission churches: expelled six missionary 
churches. The six had 441 members and the nineteen had 
706. In twenty yea13 the six had increased to twenty, with 
1,964 members, and the nineteen had decreased to ten, with 


42 An Account of the Split. 


only 343. In 1877, or forty-one years, the six had increased 
to 65 in three District Associations, with 6,733 members, and 
the anti-mission churches had ceased to ‘report. 

In 1841, Red River Association of Kentucky had thirty- 
three churches; eight missionary churches withdrew and 
formed Bethel Association. This left twenty-five anti-mis- 
sion churches. In sixty years the eight increased to sixty, 
with over 6,000 members, with Bethel College, at Russellville, 
and Bethel Female College, at Hopkinsville. Of the twenty- 
five anti-mission churches only three remained. 

The Abbott’s Union Association, now anti-mission, divided 
in September, 1832. In that Association, at the time of the 
split, the Antis were in the majority, just how many is not 
now known. However, in 1829, three years before the split, 
the body numbered 536. At the time of the split those that 
stood for missions numbered 159. From 1829 till 1832, 
when the division was forced, it is probable that they had in- | 
ereased to 600, as they seemed to be in a prosperous condi- 
tion till the trouble arose. Four years after they separated, 
1836, they reported 396 members. In 1837, 353 were re- 
ported, having decreased by 43 in one year. In 1850, they 
reported 293. In 1871, they had decreased so that they had 
only 188 members. Since that time they have increased, and 
number now between 200 and 300. 

The Liberty Association, which was formed out of the 159, 
that were rejected by the Association at Mount Tabor in 
September, 1832, met in November following, at Jamestown, 
and reported 188, a gain of 29 in two months. In 1834, they 
reported 307 baptized that Associational year. 

The Liberty, organized with 7 churches and 159 members, 
has grown to 26 churches with a membership of 2,185, after 
dismissing 5 churches with an aggregate membership of 449, 
to join other Associations more convenient to them. 

Thus we see that in every instance noted that, seemingly, 
the Lord has wonderfully blessed the churches and Associa- 
tions that have contended and stood for Bible missions. 


Sidelights on the Split. 43 


CHAPTER X. 


SIDE-LIGHTS ON THE SPLIT. 


The adding of side-lights was an afterthought, and there- 
fore some things are necessarily repeated, but the author was 
sure that the reader would be delighted to have this addi- 
tional matter, as the matter discussed can be seen from dif- 
ferent view-points. The reader will readily see that every 
author quoted bears testimony to certain truths: 

1. That our anti-mission brethren went out from the great 
body of their Baptist brethren. 

2. That almost everywhere they manifested the same 
spirit of—shall I say it?—of bitterness toward those who 
stood for the development of the Lord’s work as it was being 
carried on before 1820 or 1825. 

3. That they can not give us credit for being sincere in 
our views, but always regard us as of the world. 

The first matter introduced under the above heading is part 
of a tract by Elder Mark Bennett. : 


i 
Ps 
> by 
4 
: : 
: 
‘ae 
. 
. 
. 
! J 
‘ f ‘ 
x 
— . . 
- - - . 
- 
= 
- 
Ae 
wa sg 
. ie 
‘ 
~ ' 
alk ‘ 
j. 


REVIEW OF THE HISTORY 


OF THE 


KEHUKEE BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, 


TO WHICH ARE ADDED THE COMPARATIVE CLAIMS OF 


MISSIONARY BAPTISTS 
AND 


ANTI-MISSIONARY BAPTISTS 


TO SCRIPTURAL AND UNALTERED RELIGIOUS USAGES. 


By Rev. Marx Bennett, 


EDGECOMBE, N. C. 


RALEIGH; 
PRINTED AT THE BIBLICAL RECORDER OFFICE, 
1854 


PREFACE. 


Should it be inquired what demand there is for such a 
work as this we would answer that an exclusive claim to 
identity, with the independent and Baptist bodies of Chris- 
tians named in it, is set up by the Kehukee people, and this 
too for the ostensive purpose of condemning the mission 
enterprise, but especially the Missionary Baptists. 

The latter, in laboring to carry the Bible and the Gospel 
to all the world, are charged with having forsaken the Baptist 
ground and gospel policy; the former arrogate to themselves 
the credit of having ever remained the same. To test these 
claims is the object of these pages. 

Here it may be objected that, if this is our purpose, why 
has it not been attempted at an earlier date? Our apology 
is this, viz: We supposed the History under review would 
be read, and that this would rectify mistakes. But the sequel 
has evineed that either it has not been read or else its readers 
have, in a high degree, disregarded what they have read. We 
think it highly probable that our Kehukee friends, dissatisfied 
with the face of their own record, have preferred to lay 
upon it the veil of oblivion. To this record we wish to direct 
attention, and to bespeak for its report the charitable hcaring 
of all parties. 

Some of those most intimately concerned may attempt to 
deny that said History speaks the true principles of that 
Association. But it seems to be a singular admission that, 
with such high pretentions to fidelity and courage, she should 
suffer a minority to impose upon her a quarter of a century 
without any proper demur. 

For the manner of execution we humbly crave the indul- 
gence of the reader. The haste used in getting up the Re 
view, ete., has denied us the opportunity of attending to its 
grammar and rhetoric. And besides this we may have erred 
in considering plain historical and polemical discussion calls 
for little ornament. 


48 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


Our steady aim has been the benefit of all concerned. If 
we shall have injured anybody we believe that our motives, 
understood by good hearts, will be a guaranty for their for- 
giveness. To serve mankind in the promotion of Truth to the 
greatest advantage would fill our large desire; meanwhile, 
if we accomplish a little good we must rest contented. 

That the work may do no harm, but much good, is the 
earnest prayer of your 


Friend and brother, M. B. 


REVIEW OF KEHUKEE BAPTISTS. 


Precedent and antiquity are often seized upon for the pur- 
pose of recommending principles and usages, which in them- 
selves have little or no claim upon our esteem or confidence. 
Since the happy Reformation of Martin Luther has spread 
its Protestants and Dissenters over a large portion of Europe, 
and since the free institutions of the United States, the Eden 
of all Christendom, have brought together into civil concord 
in this country all sects and denominations; and since the 
late origin of the many peculiarities which distinguished a 
number of the sects serves to invalidate their pretentions to 
orthodoxy, it is become the universal practice to appeal to 
former customs and to early Christianity. Some are pleased 
with the sanction of fifty years ago; others are content with 
three hundred; and others with no less than 1850. Some 
are willing to trace through the line of the Romish hierarchy ; 
and others will consent only to draw their line of spiritual 
genealogy from the Bible alone. 

Among the religious bodies which have sought the seal 
and sanction of snowy time is that whose history is now under 
review. ‘Till very recently the highest antiquity claimed for 
the peculiarities of that community was 1775. One year 
anterior to that date would divide the Kehukee Association in 
two parties, called Separates and Regulars, or Separate Bap- 
tists, or Separate Newlights, and Regular Baptists. (See 
Burkitt and Read’s History, pp. 37, 38.) Pressed back far- 
ther than the year 1764, she becomes distributed into a few 
seattered churches, holding the tenets of the Freewill Bap- 
tists and General Baptists. (Benedict’s History, p. 682, and 
Burkitt and Read, p. 43.) The General Baptists held the 
doctrines of James Arminius, and the English Baptists in 
practice were missionary. 

If the Kehukee body of Christians should urge their an- 
tiquity farther than the year 1826, with the view of finding 

4 


50 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


their present likenesses, they would fail. The Kehukee As- 
sociation of 1802 and of some years later had her Union 
Meetings with their constitutions. (Biggs, p. 119.) More 
recently she has discarded and opposed these meetings. 

In 1802, she approved of evening meetings, especially of 
night meetings, for revival purposes. (Page 117.) Since 
then she has abandoned such meetings. Within the last year 
or two we learn that these meetings are revived. 

In 1802, she approved of the practice of the preacher’s 
walking among the congregations, singing and shaking hands. 
Hear what she says (pages 114, 115): 

“Shaking hands while singing was a means (though simple 
in itself) for to further the work. The ministers used fre- 
quently, at the close of worship, to sing a spiritual song 
suited to the occasion, and go through the congregation and 
shake hands with the people while singing; and several when 
relating their experience, at the time of their admission into 
church fellowship, declared that this was the first means of 
their conviction. But since then she repudiates this prac- 
tice, so much that many holding Kehukee sentiments of the 
present time would not give their hand to a minister acting 
thus.” 

In 1802, and later, inviting people to be prayed for was 
in common practice with Kehukee. Hear her speak for 
herself (pages 115, 116, Biggs): 

“Giving the people an invitation to come up to be prayed 
for was also blessed. The ministers usually, at the close of 
preaching, would tell the congregation that if there were any 
persons who felt themselves lost and condemned, under the 
guilt and burden of their sins, that if they would come near 
the stage and kneel down they would pray for them. Shame 
at first kept many back; but as the work increased numbers, 
apparently under strong conviction, would come and fall 
down before the Lord at the feet of his ministers and crave 
an interest in their prayers. * * * This very much engaged 
the ministers; and many confessed that the Lord heard the 


Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 51 


prayers of his ministers, and they had reason to hope their 
souls were relieved from the burden of their sins, through 
the blood of Christ. It had a powerful effect on the spectators 
to see their wives, their husbands, children, neighbors, so so- 
licitous for the salvation of their souls; and was sometimes 
a means of their conviction. Many ladies of quality, at times 
were so powerfully wrought on, as to come and kneel down 
in the dust in their silks to be prayed for . The act of coming 
to be prayed for in this manner had a good effect on the per- 
sons who came, in that they knew that the eyes of the con- 
gregation were on them, and if they did fall off afterwards, 
it would be a disgrace to them; this, therefore, was a spur to 
push them forward.” 

Who that hears the Kehukee denouncing these practices in 
1827 and onward, would suppose they were once her own? 
And who that is acquainted with her history prior to 1826, 
would dream that her present exclusiveness in church fellow- 
ship, she is claiming to stand on old Kehukee ground? But 
it is evident to all who are apprised of her course fifty years 
ago, and also at the present time, that a religious body or an 
individual, pursuing her former practices, would fail now to 
gain her fellowship; and, consequently, Kehukee of 1852 
could not fellowship Kehukee of 1802. 

The Kehukee Association has been quite unsettled and un- 
determined as to denominational epithet. When its present 
constitution was adopted, in 1775, the churches agreed upon 
the name of “The United Baptists ;” as that body was formed 
chiefly by a junction of the Separates and Regulars. 

The Kehukee Association had been missionary in her op- 
erations from the revival of missions in this country; and 
the mission enterprise was prosecuted with but little energy; 
‘and the number of opposers increased, yet slowly, to 1826. 
About that time two or three of her preachers drafted some 
“Sesolutions,” in which was bespoken for their denomination 
the name of “Reformed Baptists in North Carolina.” In 


52 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


the course of two years they became dissatisfied with this 
name and abandoned it. 

For some time they called themselves alternately “The Old 
Baptists,” “The Old Sort of Baptists,” “Baptists of the Old 
Stamp,” ‘The Old Side Baptists,” ete. 

During 1825, unusual pains were taken by the anti party 
to set the churches against missions; and in 1827, a majority 
was found opposed to it. ; 

If we recollect the time well, during the period of 1832 to 
1835, a meeting of a few anti-mission Baptists was held in 
Maryland, some distance from the city of Baltimore, at a 
place called Black Rock; at which meeting they resolved to 
be known among themselves by the name of “Old School 
Baptists.” With this name the Kehukee people at first were 
not well satisfied. But contemporaneously, or nearly so, 
with the Black Rock movement, a monthly with the caption 
of “Signs of the Time,” was issued from New Vernon in 
New York, Orange County; which paper unceremoniously 
dubbed the anti-mission Baptists with the name of “Old 
School Baptists.” After some mumuring and delay, the 
Kehukeeans adopted it, and became well pleased with it. 

More recently, say within twelve or eighteen months, we ap- 
prehend that they are about to throw off “Old School,” and 
take the name of “Primitive Baptists.” 

It was mentioned above, that the Kehukee Association had 
been missionary in her operations. But from 1816 to 1827 
she changed from missionary to anti-missionary. That the 
reader may be satisfied of the truth of these statements, we 
will copy from Biggs’s History of the Kehukee Association, 
the following testimony. The Kehukee says (Conoho, Mar- 
tin, 1803): 

“Ts not the Kehukee Association with all her numerous and 
respectable friends, called on in Providence, in a way to step 
forward in support of that missionary spirit which the great 
God is so wonderfully reviving amongst the different de- 
nominations of good men in various parts of the world ? 


Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 53 


“The subject was referred to next Association. Coming up 
for consideration at the Association in 1804, it was answered 
by appointing Elders Lemuel Burkitt, Martin Ross, Aaron 
Spivey, Jesse Read and John M’Cabe, delegates, to meet such 
as might be appointed by the Virginia, Portsmouth and Neuse 
Associations, at Cashie meeting house, Bertie County, on Fri- 
day before the third Sunday in June, 1805, to devise ways 
and means to support the missionary cause. The proceedings 
of this Convention were never reported to this Association, so 
as to be spread upon her minutes; but arrangements were 
made to enter into a system of collecting money to aid mis- 
sionary purposes” (p. 162.) 

According to this testimony, which is the Kehukee’s own, 
she was in 1805, as completely missionary as was the Vir- 
ginia, Portsmouth or the Neuse. And the Kehukee acknowl- 
edged in 1835 that, although the “‘missionary spirit” had had 
“the ascendancy,” (and she ought to have said they were full 
missionary bodies), yet, she owns that, until the Chowan and 
Neuse refused to correspond with her (which was in 1827, or 
later), she willingly corresponded with them. (Biggs’s His- 
tory, pp. 163, 164.) 

In 1811, there was in North Carolina an annual conven- 
tion, called “The General Meeting of Correspondence,” the 
control of which seems to have belonged, as much or more, 
to the Kehukee than to any other Association. One object 
of this convention or “meeting” was “to encourage the preach- 
ing of the Gospel.” To this meeting the Kehukee contri- 
buted $3.00 in 1812, $5.00 in 1813, and $5.00 in 1814. 
(Biggs’s History, pp. 190, 191, 195, 197.) 

Again she says: 

“The committee appointed on Saturday to examine the re- 
port of the Board at Philadelphia on Foreign Missions re- 
commended that the cireular of the agent, Elder Rice, be 
read ; which was done. 

“Brother Bennett Barrow was then appointed Correspond- 


54 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


ing Secretary of this Association until the next annual meet- 
ing, to write to said agent, receive payment for the pamphlets, 
forward and transmit the same to the Board or agent” 
(p. 200.) 

By this extract we see that from 1805 to 1815, the Kehukee 
lost nothing of her missionary spirit; that she had her “Cor- 
responding Secretary” of the Board of Foreign Missions ; and 
was selling pamphlets and collecting money to promote the 
mission cause. 

Again she says: 

“Brother Bennett Barrow was appointed the standing secre- 
tary of this Association, to correspond with the Board of 
Foreign Missions” (p. 202.) 

This permanent appointment of Barrow as secretary, was 
in 1816, at Log Chapel, Martin County. 

She says: 

“The Association received from the secretary 50 copies of 
the proceeedings of a General Convention of Baptists in the 
United States, held in Philadelphia, from the 7th to 14th of 
May, 1817; for which the Association return thanks” (p. 208.) 

This vote of thanks for minutes of the General Convention 
took place in 1817, at the Falls of Tar River. About this 
time the Kehukee began to change. Two years ago she had 
resolved to send more funds to the General Meeting. It is 
discoverable that her change began at her funds. Her cor- 
respondence outlasted her contributions by several years. 
This is seen in the following where she says: 

“Elders P. Bennett, Lancaster, and Brother Barrow, and 
in case of failure, Elder Moses Bennett, were appointed dele- 
gates to next General Meeting; and it was resolved, that, in 
future the Association would not send any of her funds to 
that meeting” (p. 200.) 

See also the next, viz: 

“The Association received sixteen copies of the fourth 
annual report of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, from 
the United States Convention of Philadelphia” (p. 210.) 


Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 55 


Here they receive the report, but offer no thanks this time. 
This was in 1818. 

Before this period the Association had lost several of her 
prominent and useful preachers, Elder Burkitt, the principal 
writer of the former history, and under whose tabors the 
body had made its largest acquisitions, had slept with his 
fathers as much as twelve or fourteen years; and Nathan Gil- 
bert about ten. Others might be named. 

Some of the surviving ministers had been much in the 
habit of preaching against ministers wearing ‘‘shoe-boots,” 
and “broadcloth coats,” and “stiff collars,’ and ‘‘white waist- 
coats.” They had likewise ridiculed learning and learned 
preachers, by speaking of their preaching as mixed up with 
“Greek and grammar,” and “high flown style,” and “book 
learning,” and “gibberish,” ete. Indeed learning, or educa- 
tion, had been little encouraged in any, except the wealthier 
classes of people; and consequently the large body of the 
churches had to contend with all the prejudices growing out 
of difference in rank and learning. These prejudices were 
the stronger, as the Association had been formed at a time, 
or adopted her constitution at a time, (1775), when the Eng- 
lish parsons among us, most of whom had better education 
than the common people, were on account of their avarice and 
impiety, extremely odious to the Baptists. And as education 
had not advanced enough to remove these prejudices, or to 
give them proper direction, they lay at that date, (1818), 
strong against learning. Nor are they either removed or 
rectified at this time, (1852.) 

Hence the degree of learning and skill denoted by the man- 
ner in which the continuation of their history was gotten up 
in 1835. It is evident that Burkitt and Read lived at a 
time when scarcely half the advantages were known, which 
thirty-three years later were offered to their successors. And 
yet it is equally evident that Biggs’s History is greatly inferior 
to theirs. Of the truth of this remark we will notice two 
or three particulars as evidence: First, a capital blunder 


9 


56 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


is committed at the outset. (See p. 162.) - About two and 
a half pages exhibiting those sentiments and reflections which 
the Association or the writer held in 1835, are droppped into 
the proceedings of 1803! This arrangement, or rather 
derangement, makes the Kehukee condemn herself for the 
very policy which she continued about fourteen or fifteen 
years afterwards to practice. It makes her speak in 1803, of 
what she did in 1827 and 1829! 

When we reflect that this interpolation is made without 
any sign of division in chapter or sections, without a para- 
graph, or even a short line, and without any note of explana- 
tion, we can not reasonably account for it but upon the ground 
that the writer wished to make Kehukee say in 1803, what 
she would not, and did not say till 1827 and 1829. 

Upon this hypothesis we can understand the whole inter- 
polation. The Association from 1803 to 1817, oceupied ground 
so distinct from what she did in 1827,-that the historian in 
his imagination divides her into two separate bodies; and 
makes “‘the old Kehukee Association,” at her session in 1827, 
rebuke herself prior to that time as “the ranks of the new 
schemed advocates” (p. 163.) Up to this period (1827) the 
Chowan and Neuse, two missionary bodies, had corresponded 
with the Kehukee, another missionary body; as pp. 162, 163, 
164, 114, 115, 200, 202, 208, 210, will show; but when she 
changed her ground, then they dropped her. But she speaks 
for herself: 

“In the Chowan and Neuse Associations, the missionary 
spirit procuring the ascendancy, evinced itself in refusing cor- 
respondence with the Kehukee which had been uninterrupted 
ever since their dismission” (pp. 163, 164.) 

Now we remark that the Kehukee was in favor to the 
query (p.162.) We ask “which spirit proeurred the ascend- 
ancy” then? The Chowan then corresponded with the Kehu- 

“kee. In 1816, the Kehukee had her Corresponding Secre- 
tary “to correspond with the Board of Foreign Missions.” 
Which “spirit procured the ascendancy” then? The Neuse 


Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 57 


then corresponded with the Kehukee. And yet her historian 
tells us, (p. 164): “But the Kehukee still remained stead- 
fast.” Her history further says: 

“When the inventions of men conflict with the scriptures, 
she will always. be found contending against them, girded 
with the shield and buckler of God’s word” (p. 164.) 

To be sure “she” will; just as earnestly as she did in 1816, 
when she appointed Bennett Barrow “standing secretary of 
this Association, to correspond with the Board of Foreign 
Missions.” Of course she has never changed:—‘But the 
Kehukee still remained steadfast!” 

A second fault in Biggs’s History is found in giving some 
transcript of the annual business proceedings, as intended for 
a history. We have a continued monotonous round of 
minutes ; carefully noting who preached the introductory dis- 
course ; his text written out; the opening and closing of each 
session, and that with prayer, and who prayed; who was ap- 
pointed to preach on Sunday, and all their texts written out; 
who to write the circular letter, and who to examine it; the 
reading of the decorum; the reading and approval of the cir- 
cular, and the order for it to be recorded ; who were committee 
on finance; who to write corresponding letters; that an in- 
vitation was given to visiting brethren, and who took seats, 
ete.,eve, ete. 

In this manner we have for history a catalogue of her meet- 
ings, an accidental history of about three days in each year, 
or ninety-six of her history in thirty-two years. And if we 
except her queries, divisions of the body, and such extracts 
as we have herein made, this is the history of the Kehukee 
Association for the third of a century. 

The publishing of Rice’s circular approved, (p. 200), and 
of “part of the writings of Robert Hall adopted as a cir- 
cular,” would in our esteem, form suitable appendages to her 
history; and so would the biography of Elders Lemuel Bur- 
kitt and Martin Ross. A few remarks on each report re- 
ceived from the Board of Foreign Missions, expressive of the 


58 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


feelings of the Association at the time; and such of the cir- 
culars as might indicate the tone of piety, should have been 
introduced; and in conclusion, general remarks embracing 
the whole period and showing the progress and variations 
through which she had passed. And by all means the “Decla- 
ration of Reformed Baptist Churches,” should have come to 
hand. The omission of these notices will cause much of her 
essential history to be entirely lost. 

A third fault in this history is, in failing to acknowledge 
her change from missionary to anti-missionary, and in not 
detailing and entering on the record the history of the change. 

All who read and see that, from 1808 to 1817, she repre- 
sents herself as engaged in missionary operations, and pub- 
lishes to the world that she appointed in 1816, (no objection 

“appearing), a “standing secretary of this Association, to cor- 
respond with the Board of Foreign Missions; will reason- 
ably wish to know when and where, and how it came about, 
that she can not now fellowship a missionary Baptist. Nay, 
as late as 1821, she had her “corresponding secretary” of the 
“Baptist General Convention,” (p. 218, Biggs), and she sent 
“one copy of her Minutes to said Board,” (p. 220.) 

In 1822, Elder Biggs was requested to add such advice (in 
a circular) to the churches as, in his opinion, might tend to 
produce a revival of religion (p. 223). 

In 1824, at Great Swamp Meeting House, Pitt County, 
the following entry is made in her minutes, viz: 

“An address from the Board of Managers of the Baptist 
Convention of the United States was received.” Now, no 
objection is heard to this, at the time. She was then en- 
gaged in missionary correspondence; and Elder Joseph Biggs 
was appointed to write “to the Board of Managers of the 
Baptist Convention,” (pp. 227, 228.) 

In 1825, at Falls of Tar River, Elder Biggs was ap- 
pointed to write “to the Baptist General Convention at Wash- 
ington City.” 


Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 59 


1826 forms an era in the history of the Kehukee Asso- 
ciation. From this time her mission operations cease, and 
she is henceforth found “remaining stcadfast’”’ on the side 
of anti-missionism. Up to this period her mission fellow- 
ship had continued; though the fountain of her missionary 
funds had dried up several years ago. 

About the year 1820, or later, there was published a pam- 
phlet signed: “A Clodhopper of North Carolina.” Its design 
was to oppose the mission enterprise. It appealed alike to 
the prejudices and the avarice of men; and its spirit was 
imbibed by many of all classes, in and out of the church. 

The cause of missions had acquired nothing like perma- 
nency, or even much strength. And although in 1820 and 
1821, a lively interest in it had been awakened in the upper 
bounds, by the labors of Elder Robert T. Daniel, who traveled 
- extensively in the State, and formed many missionary socie- 
ties, auxiliary to the North Carolina Baptist Missionary So- 
ciety ; yet all missionary exertion was soon paralyzed, chiefly 
through misapprehension on the part of churches. Some 
had supposed all the money collected was to be applied to 
Foreign Missions. Others thought it was all to be employed 
in sending preachers to the churches which contributed. 
Others, again, insisted that it was given for the special pur- 
pose of sending ministers to places entirely destitute. Several 
agents had been in the field, some at thirty dollars per month; 
and Elder Daniel, General Agent, received forty dollars per 
month. When these ministers had received compensation, 
the amount remaining was small; and as the State Society 
was mainly domestic, almost all the churches were disap- 
pointed and dissatisfied. The State Society and the auxili- 
aries were dissolved; and for several years scarcely a breath- 
ing was heard in defence of missions, through want of proper 
organization. 

This state of affairs gave currency and credit to “A Clod- 
hopper,” and to “A Declaration of the Reformed Baptists of 
North Carolina,” published in 1826; and to all the anti- 


60 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


efforts which inflamed by passion and avarice, and unre- 
strained by reason and scripture, still gained strength by lapse 
of time. 

In 1825 and 1826, the anti-missionaries began, as already 
noticed, to take an open stand. 

Accordingly at the session of 1826, Skewarkey, Martin 
County, the following was presented, namely: 

“A paper purporting to be a declaration of the Reformed 
Baptist Churches in North Carolina, (read on Saturday, and 
laid on the table until this day), was called up for discus- 
sion, and was referred to the churches to report in their let- 
ters to next Association their views on each article therein 
contained” (p. 235.) 

This famous instrument, her historian seems to have con- 
sidered not worth recording; as it is not found in Biggs. For 
this omission, however, he was excusable on three hypotheses : 
First, probably, on second thought, his Association did not 
desire to descend to posterity as Reformed Baptists; and 
secondly, it was not found incorporated in her minutes to 
transcribe which, alone, might seem to him to answer all pur- 
poses of history; and thirdly, he might have forgotten it. 

During the next associational year extraordinary efforts 
appear to have been made in support of this “Declaration,” — 
which failed to go through at Skewarkey. 

1827, at Kehukee meeting house, a majority of the churches 
signified their approbation to the said articles; and the friends 
of missions were manifestly thrown into the minority. 

The subject having been called up for action, an enthusi- 
astie speech was made against missions; at the close of which 
the speaker exclaimed with unwonted ardor: “Brethren, I 
have now brought you to the threshold of deliverance; and 
if you will not be free, rt is your own fault.” 

The whole speech was delivered under very excited feel- 
ings; the speaker at the end of it seemed to be overcome with 
his own fervor. The whole body, more or less, partook of 
his sympathy, and were in tears. His descriptions of the evil 


Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 61 


nature and tendency of missions, though extravagant and er- 
roneous, were glowing and affecting. The one party seemed 
driven to a desperate resolution; the other mortified into 
silence. The mission had been boldy denounced as an artful 
system of worldly gains and wicked speculations upon the 
gospel. 

After a short pause or silence, the Moderator, who was a 
friend to missions, rose from his seat and cooly, but firmly, 
remarked: “Brethren, I am as much opposed to speculation 
upon the gospel as Brother Lawrence or any one else.” 
Several of like sentiments immediately responded: “and so 
amI!°’ And so did every friend of missions, either silently 
or aloud. 

At this, Elder Lawrence rose and said: “If you say so, 
I am satisfied,” To which the Moderator replied: ‘Well if 
that satisfies you, I am satisfied.” 

This produced an electric effect over the whole house. In 
a moment Elder Lawrence and the Moderator were folded in 
each other’s arms, weeping. The whole delegation were on 
their feet and in tears, embracing each other. Expressions 
of thanksgiving and praise to God were heard in different 
parts of the house. 

When this transport and joyful effervescence had subsided 
and the members had resumed their seats, I rose and ad- 
dressed the house to the following effect: “Brother Modera- 
tor, in view of the deep distress which has been caused by the 
difference of opinion on this subject, and of the mischiefs 
which will follow, if the terms of reconciliation should be mis- 
inderstood, I move that we stop all further proceedings urti! 
the terms shall have been committed to writing and read be- 
fore the body.” 

The moment I paused, Elder Lawrence replied: “Brother 
Bennett, that is well understood.” This was scarcely uttered, 
when the Moderator added: “My son, that is well under- 
stood.” 


62 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


With mingled emotions, arising from conflicting hope and 
fear, I resumed my seat. 

I believe that most of the delegation returned home rejoic- 
ing, as they believed the controversy settled. But that a 
misapprehension existed in both parties the sequel clearly 
evinces, At the time of adjournment it was unknown what 
the minutes were going to say about it. The report found 
on page 241, was a subsequent work that is performed after 
adjournment, either of the clerk or some other person. 

That the missionary party understood themselves as voting 
.for any such report, not one of them would ever admit. That 
they believed the question would no more be agitated, either 
as a test of fellowship or as a subject of disputation, is very 
clear to my mind. What, then, was their surprise when the 
minutes appeared, and they turned to pages 240 and 241 and 
read as follows: 

“A paper purporting to be a declaration of the Reformed 
Baptists in North Carolina, dated 26th August, 1826, which 
was presented at last Association and referred to the churches 
to express in their letters to this Association their views with 
regard to it, came up for deliberation. Upon examination it 
was found that most of the churches had given their opinions, 
and after an interchange of sentiments among the members 
of this body, it was agreed that we discard all missionary 
societies, Bible societies, and theological seminaries, and the 
practices heretofore resorted to for their support, in begging 
money from the public; and if any persons should be among 
us as agents of any such societies, we hereafter discountenance 
them in those practices, and if under the character of a mini- 
ster of the gospel, we will not invite them into our pulpits, 
believing these societies and institutions to be the inventions 
of men and not warranted from the word of God. We further 
do unanimously agree, that should any of the members of our 
churehes join the fraternity of Masons, or being members 
thereof continue to visit the lodges and parades, we will not 


Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 63 


invite them to preach in our pulpiis, believing them to be 
guilty of such practices; and we declare non-fellowship with 
them and such practices altogether.” 

This, reader, might have been the understanding of the 
anti-missionary party; but it was not so expressed in session ; 
nor did the opposite side agree to any such thing. As evi- 
dence, see also the following, inserted at North Creek meet- 
ing house, 1828: 

“Tt was made known to this Association that some persons 
had suggested that the decision of last Association, found in 
the fourteenth article of the minutes, concerning missionary 
and Bible societies, theological seminaries, and Masonic 
fraternities, was not correctly stated; and whereas, many 
members of this Association (session) were members of the 
last, it was resolved, that the article as it appeared in the 
minutes contained the: true spirit of the decision, and that 
the Association, (this session), did not approve of any altera- 
tion thereof but advised the churches to adhere strictly 
thereto.” 

Whether the above was the decision of the body in com- 
mittee of the whole, or whether of a select committee, does 
not appear. Nor does it appear whether any of the friends 
of missions who “were members of the last,” were members of 
this session, or concerned in any way in passing the above 
preamble and resolution. If there was any of them present, 
there must have been few; and I am convinced that they 
chose rather to be silent spectators than to express openly their 
objections. I know that there was general disapprobation 
and denial of the correctness of the report of 1827, at the time 
it appeared; and several churches expressed a determination 
to quit the body. 

The Kehukee in 1829, finding that much dissatisfaction 
with the report of 1827 still existed, repeated what she had 
before published; and not content with that, she charged the 
dissatisfied portion with “misrepresentation” and corrupt 
motives, (p. 248.) 


64 Review of the Kehukee Baptist Association. 


At this session we find the following recorded: 

“Tf any minister, although he may be a missionary with- 
out the bounds of our Association, comes among us to preach 
the gospel and not to make collections, we do not reject him.” 

And yet it has been her constant practice for some years, 
where she had exclusive right, to close the doors against all 
missionaries, whether they were collecting money or not. 

From what appears in her history, as recorded by herself, 
the Kehukee Association has committed several errors, as 

First, she misrepresented the sentiments of the missionary 
party, by making them appear to have discarded all mission- 
ary societies, Bible societies, and theological seminaries ; 
whereas, the mission party conceded only that “they were as 
much opposed to speculation upon tke gospel as any one else.” 
Besides, the reader of Biggs’s History will see, that “a declara- 
tion of the Reformed Baptists” was never put upon its pas- 
sage before the body. This fact left good room for the 
friends of missions to consider said “declaration” as can- 
celled. 

Secondly, she committed a fault by impugning their mo- 
tives. She alleges that they were acting from “hopes of per- 
sonal aggrandizement.” 

I do not know what the Kehukee may regard as necessary 
to aggrandize a person. I admit that men may preach for 
various motives; and that some, at least, have “preached 
Christ even of envy and strife’—and of contention, not sin- 
cerely and the strongest motive was to add affliction to a 
man’s bonds. It may raise one man to the pinnacle of his 
highest aspirations to be called a preacher. I knew a Kehu- 
kean who scarcely ever spoke of ministers without the phrase, 
“we preachers.” Another may be contented with the ap- 
plause of the uninformed and ill-judging, if uttered in his 
own ear. <A third may be seeking the praise of the learned 
and great. A fourth may be incited by the desire of lucre. 
All these motives may be equally strong with those which 


History of the Baptists in Missourt, 65 


prompt the man who covets earnestly the best gifts. And 
the opposer of the mission enterprise who is every day re- 
ceiving from the multitude the plaudit of “true” and “honest” 
and “faithful,” doubtless fancies himself as completely ag- 
grandized, as the missionary who is carrying the Bible to and 
preaching the gospel in other nations. 

A third error of the majority, whose constitution bound 
them ‘“‘to provide for the general union of the churches,” was 
to refuse a patient hearing of the missionary party. This 
error is manifest in the action of the sessions of 1828 and 
1829. | 

A part of the churches, therefore, seeing from the resolu- 
tions of 1829, and that principles were neither approved nor 
properly understood in the Kehukee Association, applied at 
Flat Swamp, 1831, for letters of dismission. These churches 
were nine in number. As soon as arrangements could be 
made these nine churches united with several others which 
were dismissed from the Sandy Creek and Raleigh, (two 
missionary bodies), and formed the Tar River, (ever since), 
a missionary association. 


HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS IN MISSOURI. 
By R. 8S. Duncan. 
(Pages 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171.) 

Mr. Dunean, in his account of the Mt. Pleasant Association, 
says in part, as regards the split: 

It was obvious on Saturday to a majority of the brethren 
last mentioned, that if a compromise could not be agreed upon 
there must be a division, and in the hope of preventing this 
they met that night at the house of Brother Sebree. After 
much consultation the corresponding brethren advised the 
missionaries to submit the following propositions: 

1. We are willing to be at peace upon the principles of the 
United Baptists of the United States. 

5 


66 History of the Baptists in Missouri. 


2. We are willing to be at peace, if the Association will 
adhere to the advice given at its last session, yielding to all 
the liberty of conscience upon the subject of missions. 

3. If a division upon the subject of missions is inevitable, 
the minority proposes that it shall be effected by advising the 
churches to grant to minorities in each, if that minority re- 
quest it, a copy of the record of the church book, and that in 
all cases the majority in each church, whether for or against 
the foregoing propositions, retain the regular days of meeting, 
and the church book. Should the minority in any ease re 
quire it, they shall be entitled to the use of the house two days 
in every month, selecting for themselves any other day, Sat- 
urday and Sunday, than those upon which the majority meet. 

These propositions were given to Brother Sebree, who on 
Monday morning before the Association met, submitted them 
to Elder Redding. After reading them, Elder Redding re- 
marked that, in behalf of his brethren he would agree to the 
last, but would have nothing to do with the others. At a 
suitable moment Brother Sebree remarked to the Association 
that, he had three propositions to offer, which he would read. 
He wished to have the first adopted. It was his first choice. 
If that was defeated he would offer the second, as he pre- 
ferred it to the third; but if he could not obtain the second 
he would then offer the third, as the only alternative left 
them. He then read the propositions, but before he could 
offer the first, Elder Redding moved the adoption of the third, 
and met with a second, whereby Brother Sebree was fore- 
stalled. To effect his object he moved to amend, by sub- 
stituting the first instead of the third. It was the fixed pur- 
pose of Elder Redding and the anti brethren to avoid the 
question, whether they would be governed by the principles 
of the general union, and they would have succeeded if Brother 
Sebree had been ignorant of the principles of parliamentary 
proceedings. The amendment forced the Association to de- 
cide, and the question being taken, whether they were willing 


History of the Baptists in Missourv. 67 


to live upon the principles of the United Baptists in the 
United States, it was carried in the negative. Brother Sebree 
then moved the adoption of his second proposition, which was 
refused, and the liberty of conscience clearly denied. The 
question recurring upon the adoption of the third, it was car- 
ried in the affirmative. The missionary party then retired, 
and having no disposition to interrupt those who occupied 
the house, adjourned to meet with the Mt. Moriah Church on 
‘the fourth Saturday in October succeeding. 

It should be remembered that no church in the Association 
had taken any action on the subject of missions. There were, 
perhaps, not more than thirty, certainly not more than fifty, 
persons in the whole Association that belonged to the Central 
Society, and no one of these had introduced the subject into 
the church of which he was a member. We have called one 
party missionary only for the sake of distinction, for in truth 
a large portion, if not a large majority of those so styled had 
never belonged to any benevolent society, and stood opposed to 
missionary operations. 
~ The question which caused the division was whether liberty 
of conscience should be granted; and all who were in the af- 
firmative were then and still are called missionaries. We 
have remarked that when this question was fairly put and 
decided in the negative, the minority withdrew and adjourned 
to a future day. Both parties claimed to oceupy original 
ground, and each styled itself the Mt. Pleasant Association. 

Note, please, the closing sentence of the foregoing: 

First. Mt. Pleasant Association was organized upon the 
principles of “United Baptists,” and so continued until 1835. 

Second. In 1835, when the trouble came up on missions 
the opposers rejected the original basis or constitution, while 
the friends of missions—the minority—stood upon the said 
basis or constitution. 

Third. The anti-mission party changed the old constitu- 
tion, dropping the name “United Baptists,” and took the 
name “Old School Baptists.” Upon the other hand, the 


68 History of the Baptists in Missouri. 


missionary party did, and to this day (1882) do, retain the 
original name and constitution. 

* * * Associations among the Baptists with their present 
name and model, originated in Wales between two and three 
hundred years ago, and are really human inventions with no 
ecclesiastical power whatever. And so long as a Baptist As- 
sociation is regarded as a voluntary society, with no ecclesi- 
astical power over anybody, made up for useful and religious 
purposes, composed of messengers from the churches thus 
united, whose privilege is to devise measures for all good and 
lawful purposes that individual churches may and ean do, 
all is well. The trouble usually has arisen from resolutions 
to prohibit or require action on the subject of missions and 
other objects of Christian benevolence. 

The trouble in the Mt. Pleasant Association mainly grew 
out of the fact that some of the members of some of its 
churches had united with the Central Society for missionary 
purposes. A portion of the Association was so bitterly op- 
posed to said society and the object of its organization, that 
they determined to withdraw fellowship from all who had 
countenanced the society, on the ground that it was a human 
invention and unauthorized in the Scriptures. These breth- 
ren were no doubt honest in their opposition to the Central 
Society, but it does seem strange that they could not see that 
Baptist Associations are as really human inyentions as are 
mission societies. 

The following extract is from the doings of the Old Welsh 
Association, the first of modern times: 

“In the association held at Swansea, in 1654, the church 
at Llantrisaint proposed to assist the church at Abergavenny, 
now Llanwenarth, to support their minister, which also they 
did. From the messenger of Llantrisaint, also, the proposal 
to revive the ancient order of things came the preceding year ; 
that is, to encourage and support the missionary cause.” 
(History Welsh Baptists, by Davis, p. 85.) 

The anti-missionary Baptists claim that the missionary 


History of the Baptists in Missouri. 69 


enterprise is a “modern invention.” They, no doubt, think 
that it is; but the very opposite is true. Missions are as old 
as Christianity—no new thing, not even among the Baptists. 
By the foregoing extract we learn that over 200 years ago 
the Welsh Baptists promoted missions, and considered the 
“missionary cause’? a part of-the “ancient order of things.” 
We hope the reader will not pass on without carefully read- 
ing the quotation again. 

The oldest Baptists this side of the bloody age—the times 
of persecution, when God’s true witnesses lived in seclusion 
to escape the eruelties of the Romish Church—were Mission- 
ary Baptists. Tell it to all around you, and wherever you 
go. The real Old School, or Primitive Baptists, in every 
age of ecclesiastical history, have been the most zealous sup- 
porters of missions, home and foreign. This is written ad- 
visedly ; we know whereof we affirm. 

* * * The great American Baptist Brotherhood almost 
boast of their descent from the English Particular Baptists. 
The first and oldest Baptist churches and associations of 
America were Missionary Baptists, the Old Philadelphia, the 
Warren, the Charleston and the Kehukee Associations, all had 
missionary plans for promoting the spread of the gospel. 

After quoting history showing that the old associations were 
really missionary in spirit and practice, the author concludes 
as follows: 

“Fidelity to the truth compels us to say that the anti-mis- 
sionary party were the aggressors in this controversy. There 
can be, we think, no doubt on this subject, and in confirmation 
of the truth of what we say, we refer the reader to the proposi- 
tions of Uriel Sebree at the meeting in 1835, submitted in 
behalf of the friends of missions, as follows: 

“First. We are willing to be at peace upon the principles of 
the United Baptists of the United States. 

“Second. We are willing to be at peace, if the association 
will adhere to the advice given at its last session, yielding to 
all the liberty of conscience upon the subject of missions.” 


70 From Baptist Church Perpetuity. 


Both these propositions were rejected by the opposers of 
missions; hence we say they were the aggressors, for both 
these propositions were reasonable and in perfect harmony 
with the original principles of the Association and of the 
Baptist denomination generally. 


The following is quoted from Baptist Church Perpetuity, 
a history published more than ten years ago in Dallas, Texas., 
on the same subject under discussion, the author introduced 
the late T. H. Pritchard, D. D., who says 

“T shall now prove from unquestionable historical facts 
that the associations which are now anti-missionary were in 
favor of Foreign Missions up to the year 1826, ’27, and 730, 
and hence have no claim to the title of the Old School Bap 
tists. 

“T will begin with the Baltimore Association, perhaps the 
most famous body of this modern sect in the United States. 
Their minutes for 1814 contain the following record: ‘Re- 
ceived a corresponding letter from Brother Rice, one of our 
nussionary brethren, on the subject of encouraging mission- 
ary societies.” This Brother Rice was Luther Rice, who was 
then just from Burmah, where he had gone as a missionary 
with Adoniram Judson. 

“Tn 1816, these minutes in their circular letter, say: “The 
many revivals of religion which are witnessed in various parts 
of the country—the multiplication of Bible societies, mission- 
ary societies and Sunday schools, both in our own and foreign 
countries, are viewed by us as showing indications of the near 
approach of that day when the knowledge of the Lord shall 
cover the earth.’ The minutes of the same year state ‘that 
the standing clerk was instructed to supply the correspond- 
ing secretary of the Foreign Mission Board with a copy of our 
minutes annually.’ In 1817 ‘Brother Luther Rice presented 
himself as the messenger of the Baptist Board of Foreign Mis- 
sions and. was cordially received.’ 

“Elder James Osborne was a member of this body, which 


From Baptist Church Perpetutty. 71 


cordially received a foreign missionary. This man Osborne, 
who was a leader in the anti-mission secession, both in Mary- 
land and North Carolina, I remember to have seen in Char 
lotte when I was a small boy. He was a handsome, dressy 
man, full of conceit, and very fond of talking of himself and 
of selling his own books. 

“From the same authentic source, the minutes of the Bal- 
timore Association, we learn that in 1828 they called them- 
selves ‘Regular Baptists’, just as we do now; the same year 
they express their joy at the intelligence of the conversion of 
the heathen, and as late as 1827 the association expressed, by 
formal resolutions, their sorrow at the death of Mrs. Ann H. 
Judson and their great interest in the mission with which she 
was connected, and it was not till 1836, when the association 
met with the Black Rock Church, and then by a vote of sixteen 
to nine, that fellowship was withdrawn’ from churches favor- 
ing Foreign Missions, Sunday Schools, ete.” 

* * * The evidence to show that the County Line As- 
sociation was a missionary body up to the year 1832 is per- 
fectly overwhelming. Its minutes show that in 1816, 717 and 
718 that body sent delegates to the general meeting of corres- 
pondence, and in 1816 Elder George Roberts, one of the min- 
isters of this Association, was the Moderator of the general 
meeting of correspondence of which Robert T. Daniel was 
the agent, and which developed into the North Carolina Bap- 
tist State Convention. In 1818 this Association sent $32.45 
to the North Carolina Missionary Society by the hands of 
Brother John Campbell. 

And what is still more remarkable, there was a very pros- 
perous Woman’s Missionary Society in this Association, the 
minutes of which, kept by John Campbell, show that the 
“Hyco Female Cent Society’ was formed at Lynch’s Creek 
meeting house, in Caswell county, in October, 1816; in 
March, 1817, it met at Bush Arbor meeting house; in March, 
1818, it met at the same place; in 1819 at Graves’s meeting 
house, and the fifth annual meeting was held in September, 


72 Split in the North Carolina Mountains. 


1820, at Arbor; all of these churches are now anti-mission, 
but were then missionary bodies, and the persons who 
preached the annual sermons, R. Dishong, J. Landus, Bar- 
zillai Graves, Abner W. Clopton and S. Chandler, were all 
Missionary Baptist ministers. 

In 1832 the County Line Association was in regular cor- 
respondence with the Flat River and Sandy Creek Associa- 
tions, both of which were then and still are missionary bodies. 

In 1832 James Osborne, of Baltimore, visited this Associa- 
tion, and under his presence it was induced to withdraw fel- 
lowship from the Missionary Baptists. 

Now from this brief statement of unvarnished facts we see 
that the Missionary Baptists are just where the Apostles were 
and where all of the name were till 1827-28, when a new sect 
arose, calling themselves, according to Elder Bennett’s Re- 
view, page 8, at first, The Reformed Baptists in North Car- 
olina, and then the Old Baptists, the Old Sort of Baptists, 
Baptists of the Old Stamp, and finally adopted the name of 
the Primitive Baptists. 

There are many things about these brethren which [I like, 
and I would not needlessly call them by an offensive name, but 
I can not style them Old School or Primitive Baptists, for in 
so doing I should falsify the facts of history, and acknowledge 
that I and my brethren have departed from the faith of the 
- Apostles and Baptist fathers. In no invidious sense, there- 
fore, but from necessity, I am obliged to call them Nev 
School or Anti-missionary Baptists. 


SPLIT IN THE NORTH CAROLINA MOUNTAINS. 


Elder G. W. Greene, our Missionary to China, wrote an 
able article on “The Baptists of the Upper Yadkin Valley,” 
for the Baptist Historical Papers, Vol. III, No. 2, from 
which I quote: “Before 1830, there is no evidence of serious 
strife, nor of heresies of any serious consequence. * * * A 
little later came the division on the question of the mission- 


Split in the North Carolina Mountains. ie 


ary work. It had come earlier in other parts of the country ; 
but in these churches the missionary spirit had never been 
strong nor resulted in active effort, and so the division was 
later and less wide than in other sections. In many churches 
and Associations there was no division. In a few, like the 
Globe church, the missionary sentiment was very pronounced, 
but in the minority. These brethren were not willing to sit 
still and do nothing, while the majority declared non-fellow- 
ship with the whole missionary movement. The majority 
also were very decided in their views and unwilling to be 
silent. So the minority were pushed out, built a new house 
of worship, and began a long course of prosperity and active 
missionary effort. In other churches the missionary senti- 
ment was in the ascendant, in influence, if not in numbers, 
but not very pronounced. Neither side sought to make a 
declaration on the subject, and so there was no division. 

“Still other churches and Associations were almost unani- 
mous in their opposition to missions, and by resolution 
aligned themselves with the anti-missionaries. Thus it came 
about that very few churches or Associations were formally 
divided on this question, though there was much difference of 
sentiment. Only one new Association was formed in this 
connection, the Silver Creek, which includes several churches 
in Caldwell and Burke. 

“But it should be observed that the anti-missionary senti- 
ment in this section was not quite the same as in other parts 
of the country. In a word, there were no ‘Hardshell’ Bap- 
tists in this section until after the year 1870. (No discour- 
tesy is meant by the use of the term ‘Hardshell.’ It is dis- 
tinctive of a definite doctrinal system, and no other term is 
equally free from ambiguity. The term ‘Primitive,’ always 
ambiguous, is especially so here from the fact that one Asso- 
ciation was called the Primitive Association, but was never 


Hardshell. ) 


74 Split in the North Carolina Mountains. 


“Hardshell Baptists are anti-missionary on doctrinal 
grounds. They are ultra-Calvinistic. They believe that the 
doctrine of election precludes the use of means, and there- 
fore the sending of the gospel to the destitute is not only use- 
less but presumptuous. They never warn sinners to repent, 
never hold protracted meetings, and call Sunday schools ‘the 
work of the devil.’ These things were not true of the early 
opponents of organized mission work who lived in this moun- 
tain country. 

“Some of the churches of the Silver Creek Association were 
Calvinistic and utterly refused to fellowship the churches 
which had any sympathy with the work of missions. But 
as late as 1862, in the anti-missionary church in the Globe, 
seekers of religion were invited to ask for prayer. The Cal- 
vinism of the other opponents of missions was of a very mild 
type, if it could be called Calvinism at all. None of them 
believed in falling from grace, but they did not believe in 
unconditional election. Few of them went farther than a 
Methodist, who believes that election is based upon God’s 
foreknowledge of our repentance and faith. 

“They constantly exhorted sinners to repentance; they held 
protracted meetings; they had fellowship with the churches 
which contributed for missions. Members were received by 
letter from missionary churches, and letters were given to 
members who wished to join such churches. The Mountain 
Association was foremost in its opposition to missions, but 
its churches continued these acts of fellowship till about 1880. 
Elder William Hall, who was long the Moderator of this 
body, assisted in ordaining Elder James McNeill, who was an 
earnest advocate of missions. 

“Their opposition to missions, then, was not doctrinal, but 
economic. They objected to Boards and Conventions as un- 
scriptural and expensive machinery. They insinuated or 
openly charged that a large part of the money contributed 
for the spread of the gospel was wasted by the brethren 


Spencer's History of Kentucky Baptists. 75 


through whose hands it passed. As early as 1870 there were 
Hardshell Baptists in Surry and Yadkin, but probably none 
west of those counties, unless some of the churches of the 
Silver Creek Association had already reached this advanced 
position. Soon after this date missionaries came from the 
Hardshell Baptists in Person and Caswell, and perhaps some 
from farther east, and visited the churches which still re- 
mained in the Mountain Association. Soon a change was 
manifest in the spirit of these churches. They began to re- 
fuse letters to those who wished to join churches of other As- 
sociations ; if members came with letters from such churches, 
they required them to be rebaptized. About 1880, Elder Joel 
Brown, a member of the old Beaver Creek church, held a 
meeting with.the Reddies River church, which belonged to 
the Mountain Association, and at the close baptized several 
candidates. Not long afterwards the church, by the advice 
of certain visiting ministers, required these persons to be 
rebaptized. Some of them accepted rebaptism, but others 
joined neighboring churches which were in full fellowship 
with Bro. Brown. 

“Now the Mountain and the Silver Creek Associations are 
in full harmony with the Hardshell Baptists of the eastern 
part of the State.” 


From Spencer's History of Kentucky Baptists, vol. 1, p. 
570: “Previous to 1816, there was not an anti-mission Bap- 
tist in Kentucky, so far as known. In every Association 
where a missionary enterprise was proposed, it met with uni- 
versal favor.” 

From the same volume, pp. 676-677, the following is 
taken: 

“The Anti-missionaries, however, both those who still clung 
to the skirts of the churches, and those who had gone ‘out 
from us because they were not of us,’ continued to be a 


76 Spencer's History of Kentucky Baptists. 


source of embarrassment to all the benevolent operations of 
the denomination. They still bore the name of Baptists, to 
which they had prefixed such prenonyms as‘Old,’ ‘Old School,’ 
‘Primitive,’ ‘Predestination, ‘Original,’ ‘Particular,’ ‘Regu- 
lar,’ and, in one small Association, at least, ‘Anti-missionary.’ 

“They continued to mingle with their former brethren, in 
the social circle, and, in every way, to exert the full measure 
of their influence against every form of systematic benevo- 
lence. Most of their sermons were, in part, at least, bitter 
or ludicrous satires against missions, Sunday schools, Bible 
societies, Colleges, protracted meetings and ‘larned’ preach- 
ers. Elder M. F. Ham, of Scottsville, Ky., repeated to the 
author. some years ago, the substance or (of) a sermon he 
heard an Antinomian preacher had delivered from the fol- 
lowing text: “That there should be no schemes in the body,’ 
I Cor. 12:25; (‘That there should be no schism in the body’). 
With great vehemence he proceeded to denounce, one after 
another, the Missionary scheme, the Bible Society scheme, 
the Sunday school scheme, and all other benevolent schemes, 
the names of which he could not call to mind, ‘clinching each 
paragraph with a thundering repetition of the text: “That 
there should be no schemes in the body.’ 

“The preaching of such men, however absurd it may appear 
to the thoughtful, harmonizing as it did with covetousness, 
one of the strongest passions of corrupt human nature, could 
not fail to exert a strong influence against missions among 
the masses of the illiterate. Dr. James A. Kirtley thus 
speaks of the manner in which they influenced the thought- 
less, against truth and benevolence: “The annual gatherings 
of this little body (Salem Association of Antinomian Bap- 
tists) and some of the occasional meetings of their churches, 
were the stated seasons for the coming together of their 
preachers from North, South, East and West, who seemed to 
think that the highest aim of their calling was, by vulgar wit 
and ludicrous anecdotes, to hold up to derision and contempt 


Spencer's History of Kentucky Baptists. od 


those to whom they applied the epithets ‘Arminians,’ ‘Soft- 
shell,’ and the like; while educated ministers, missionaries, 
Bible societies, ete., came in for a full share of their denun- 
ciation.’ 

“At the period of which we write, the separation between 
the missionaries and anti-missionaries was not completed, and 
the preaching described above contrasted strongly with that 
heard in protracted meetings. It could not be expected that 
people with such different religious views, feelings and modes 
of worship would long remain together in the same churches 
and Associations. It was but natural that the division should 
go on, until the two peoples should be separated in ecclesiasti- 
cal relationship, as they were already divided in doctrine and 
practice. Goshen, South Concord and Stockton’s Valley As- 
sociations split in 1842; the first throwing off a small frag- 
ment of anti-missionaries, and the last two setting off a feeble 
band of missionaries. This about completed the division. 
When the statistics of Kentucky Baptists for 1843 were col- 
lected, there was a general surprise. All the anti-mission- 
aries, of which there were at least three different sects, em- 
braced 17 Associations, 204 churches, 82 ordained ministers 
and 7,877 members, of which 476 had been baptized the last 
year, while the missionary Baptists numbered 39 Associa- 
tions, 625 churches, 59,302 members, of which 7,271 had 
been baptized during the last year. 

“The anti-missionary schismatics had set up the claim that 
they were the original Baptist denomination in Kentucky, 
and had asserted it so loud, and have continued to assert it 
so long, that they have not only deceived many others on that 
subject, but have actually deceived themselves. Happily, 
the records of the doings of these stormy days have been well 
preserved, and the impartial historian of to-day need have 
but little difficulty in setting forth the facts in the case.” 


78 From the Pen of Elias Dodson. 


FROM THE PEN OF ELIAS DODSON. 


At the session of the Beulah Association, August, 1868, 
Elder Elias Dodson read the following item of history, and 
the Association agreed that it should be inserted in the 
minutes, 

HisrTory. 

The Roanoke Association was organized in 1788, and be- 
sides several churches in Virginia, embraced all the churches 
in Granville, Person, Caswell and Rockingham, N. C. 

In 1784, the Flat River Association was formed from the 
Roanoke and included the churches in North Carolina. 

In 1806, the County Line Association was formed from 
the Flat River. In 1789, the Roanoke Association convened 
with Grassy Creek church, Granville County. The ministers 
present were Samuel Harris, Moderator; John Williams, 
Clerk; James Hartwell, A. W. Dodson, Lazarus Dodson, 
John Atkinson, James Read and George Roberts, with others 
who were the patriarchs of the denomination. At this session 
it was resolved to collect materials for the history of the Vir- 
ginia Baptists, and to build two seminaries (one on the north 
and the other on the south of James River) to educate preach- 
ers. The history was furnished by Semple in 1810. The 
Clerk wrote the circular letter advocating ministerial educa- 
tion. In 1790, Thomas Mullins and Barzillai Graves were 
delegates from County Line church. In the same year they 
allowed Elders Reuben Pickett and George Roberts 32 shill- 
ings each for four days expense to the general meeting at 
Richmond. 

In 1791, Thomas Mullins was a delegate from County Line 
church. In 1792, Wolf Island church joined. In 1793, Bar- 
zillai Graves was from County Line and Thomas Mullins 
from Linkfork. All these fathers favored the education plan 
and Williams was progressing in the matter. During all 
these years George Roberts was pastor of Flat River in Per- 


History of the Delaware Baptists, 79 


son County. Williams died in 1795, and the education plan 
delayed by war with France and then with England in 1812, 
culminated in 1832 in a school by Edward Baptist and Eli 
Ball, in the Baptist Seminary, and in Richmond College. 


Missions. 


In 1815, Elders Reuben Pickett, John Jenkins, William 
Blair and John Britton organized a Foreign Missionary So- 
ciety at County Line Meeting House, Halifax, Va. It was to 
meet annually and each of the four preachers was to be an 
agent. 

JAMES OSBORNE 
was a member of the Second Church in Baltimore, which 
has always been a missionary.body. Elder J. H. Jones, who 
preached in Baltimore till 1819, when he left, (and the same 
year the third church united with the Baltimore Association) 
I suppose his wife and daughter were members with him. 

In 1818, the third church in Baltimore was constituted, and 
_ Elder Osborne was succeeded as pastor by Elder J. P. Peck- 
worth, a most decided missionary. Elder Jones thinks the 
third church was dissolved about 1826. Elder Osborne trav- 
eled as missionary in the Baltimore Association, and received 
funds from that body. Elder J. H. Jones now lives near St. 
Stephens P. O., King and Queen County, Va. 


SaBBatu ScHOOLs. 
In 1821, the Circular Letter of County Line Association 
advocated Sabbath schools. 
E. Dopson. 


In his Inrropucrion to the History of Delaware Baptists, 
Prof. G. D. B. Pepper says in part: 

“Baptist history in Delaware has a character and value all 
its own. It is unique. It is not distinguished simply by the 
place of its enactment, a corner cut off from a uniform piece 
of cloth. Its lessons are its own, and it teaches them in its 


80 The Hardshell or Primitive Baptists. 


own way. One lesson, especially, of utmost import it makes 
solemnly and sadly prominent. Perhaps nowhere else in this 
country has Antinomianism, with its natural, if not insepa- ~ 
rable, attendants of anti-missionism, anti-Sunday schoolism, 
and all the other kindred anti-isms, so impressively by its 
fruits proved its origin, nature and doom. In doing this it 
has proved with like certainty its antagonism to the genuine 
Baptist faith and practice. While the earliest and the latest 
Baptists are one in spirit and doctrine, they are both irrecon- 
cilably in antagonism with this distortion of divine truth. 
Its defenders may claim and receive the Baptist name, but 
they have no right to it. It does not belong to them. That 
they wear it, works mischief to those to whom it does belong, 
for it leads many to confound’ the true with the false, and 
unjustly to regard the true as they justly do the false.” 


The following paragraph is taken from an article, ‘“The 
Hardshell or Primitive Baptists,” in the Texas Historical 
and Biographical Magazine, Vol. 2, p. 672, Dr. J. B. Link, 
Editor. He says in part: ‘There have been probably seven 
or eight of these Associations formed in the State, but there 
are perhaps not half somany now: Their churches are mostly 
small, and far apart. They were not anti-missionary, and 
denied being so, on their first separation from the Missionary 
Baptists, but claimed that it was the organizations outside 
of the churches they objected to, such as conventions, boards, 
Sunday schools, societies, ete. 

They had some excellent men that went with them in 
Texas, such as Reed, Couch and others. But various new doc- 
trines have spread among some of them, such as the two-seed 
doctrine and that of the new created or new given soul at re- 
generation. Their articles of faith do not embody these de 
partures, nor anything else very objectionable. They were 
extreme Predestinarians. They maintain a reputation for 
honesty and paying debts that many others do not. The only 


Moriah Association in South Carolina. 81 


statistics at hand (1892) give them 1,000 members, 20 
churches and 24 ministers in the State.” 


Davin Benepicr, one of our able historians, in his His- 
tory of the Baptist Denomination, printed in 1848, speaking 
of the Moriah Association in South Carolina, session of 1845, 
says: 

“One article in their minutes for 1845, with reference to 
the opposers of the cause of benevolence, speaks in the fol- 
lowing emphatic terms: 

“<A request was made from Bethel church, one of their fra- 
ternity in N. C., for the Association to give the churches some 
advice how they ought to treat the opposers of the mis- 
sionary enterprise. A committee, consisting of W. F. Bra- 
sington, P. T. Hammond and J. T. Lee, made the follow- 
ing report: 

“Tn answering the above request, we have regard only to 
the religious standing of Anti-missionaries with ourselves, 
as an Association of Baptist churches. We regard them in 
the light of secession—having seceded from the principles 
and practices of all Baptist missionary bodies. By reference 
to the history of our Association, we may see that missionary 
principles and practices were interwoven with our early As- 
sociational existence. Some of these Antis have gone out 
from us, after having subscribed to those principles and par- 
ticipated in those practices. In going out, and in compact 
form, they have denounced our ministry as heterodox, and 
our churches as extravagantly corrupt, by declaring non-fel- 
lowship with us. 

“ “Tt appears to us that their principle relies upon factional 
strength for successes, and consequently threatens the disso- 
Iution of Christian ties and the destruction of church har- 
mony. In view of these facts, and with a desire to main- 
tain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and to per- 
petuate the rich inheritance to another generation (so far as 


6 


82 The Regular Baptists. 


we can, by example and counsel), we advise the churches 
forming this Association to exercise all possible, but lauda- 
ble, means to prevent the access of those characters to, and_ 
the deleterious influence of their principles on your respec- 
tive congregations. Brethren, after having gone as far as 
they have with us, and then against us, there is no law in 
nature or charity which will suffice to open our pulpits to 
them.’ ” 


THE REGULAR BAPTISTS, COMPRISING “TEE 
SANDY CREEK BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, ZO- 
GETHER WITH THE GREAT BODY OF BAP- 
TISTS IN THE UNITED STATES, SHOWN TO BE 
THE “OLD SCHOOL,” OR. “ PRIADRIYVGi 
TISTS.” THEY ARE NOT SECEDERS FROM THE 
ANTI-MISSION BAPTISTS, OR FROM ANY 
OTHER DENOMINATION. _ 

(Collated from Purefoy’s History of the Sandy Creek Association.) 


As the idea obtains extensively that the Regular Baptists 
(called Missionary Baptists, as a distinction between them 
and the Anti-mission) are the new or seceding party, we will 
submit testimony that proves the erroneousness of this idea. 

'This wrong impression prevails merely from the fact that 
the Anti-mission brethren call themselves “Old School’ or 
“Primitive Baptists.” Ifa man ealls himself the elder son, 
it does not make him so, unless he is actually the first born. 
So it is in the case now before us. 

The opposers of missions style themselves the “Old School” 
or “‘Primitive Baptists.” That they are properly the New 
Baptists will appear from the following facts: 

1. Paul was a missionary, and was sustained by the 
churches while he labored among the Gentiles (heathen) to 
teach them the gospel. He says: “I robbed other churches, 
taking wages of them to do you service.” 2 Cor. xi, 7, 8, 9. 
That is, while Paul was preaching at Corinth other churches 


The Regular Baptists. 83 


supported him, in the same sense that missionaries are now 
sustained among the heathen. Paul says to the Corinthians: 
“T have preached to you the gospel of God freely,” v. 7; that 
is, without cost to you. “I robbed other churches, taking 
wages of them to do you service’; v. 8. “And when I was 
present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; 
for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came 
from Macedonia supplied,” ete., v. 9. 

This is the way that missionaries are now supported—that 
must be obvious to every unprejudiced mind. 

In Acts xiil., 1, 2, 3, there is an account of the manner 
of sending out missionaries to the heathen. 

1. The Holy Ghost directed the ministers, Barnabas and 
Saul, to separate, etc., verse 2. 

2. They were set apart by fasting, prayer and laying on of 
hands, verse 3. 

3. They were sent away by the church. ‘They sent them 
away,” verse 3. 

This is the way that missionaries are now set apart, and , 
sent to the heathen. 

Again Paul tells us, “It pleased God that I (Paul) might 
preach among the heathen,” Gal. i, 15, 16. In the 2d chap- 
ter and 9th verse, Paul tells us who it was that gave to him 
and Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship, that they should 
go unto the heathen,” namely, J ames, Cephas and John. 

From the preceding scriptural testimony it is evident. 

1. That in the apostolic age of the church God called and 
directed men to preach to the heathen. Acts xiii. 2; Gal. i, 
15. 

2. Funds were raised by the churches for this purpose, 
and paid as “wages” to the missionaries. 2 Cor. xi. 7, 8, 9. 

3. They were set apart by fasting, prayer and laying on 
of hands, and then sent away. Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. 

4, The right hand of fellowship was extended to those that 
were sent. Gal. ii. 9. 


84 The Regular Baptists. 


5. The Regular Baptists, frequently called Missionary 
Baptists, “give the right hana of fellowship” to those that 
go out now to “the heathen.” The Anti-mission Baptists give’ 
them their left hand, that is, non-fellowship; consequently 
they are the new party. 

A very large proportion of the Associations that are now 
calling themselves “‘Old School” or “Primitive Baptists” were 
previously committed to missions. This is true of the Kehu- 
kee, County Line, Baltimore and other Associations. 

In 1802, and for a number of years afterward, the Kehukee 
Association was in favor cf, and practiced, revival measures, 
that they have since repudiated and ridiculed. 

Elders Burkitt and Read, in their history of this Associa- 
tion, p. 139, say: “The Association (in 1794) agreed to 
appoint the Saturday before the fourth Sunday in every 
month a day for prayer meetings throughout the churches, 
whereon all the members of the respective churches were 
requested to meet at their meeting houses or places of worship, 
* and there for each of them, as far as time would admit, to 
make earnest prayer and supplication to Almighty God for 
a revival of religion.” 

* * * * Tn 1802 this body approved of evening meetings 
for revival purposes. Elders Burkitt and Read, p. 148, say, 
“Evening meetings were greatly blessed * * * * In some 
neighborhoods they met once a week on an evening, and num- 
bers would attend. Sometimes nearly two hundred people 
would meet, and some would come ten miles to a night meet- 
ing.” That is, meetings of a revival character. 

After 1827 this body changed its position, and condemned 
these revival measures and meetings. 

From the revival of missions in this country to 1826 or 
°27, the Kehukee Association was a missionary body. This 
subject was brought forward for consideration by them in 
1803. 

In 1804, Elders Burkitt, Ross, Spivey, Read, and Me- 
Cabe were appointed delegates to meet such as might be ap- 


The Regular Baptists. 85 


pointed by the Virginia, Portsmouth and Neuse Associations, 
to meet at Cashie, M. H., Bertie County, on Friday before 
the third Sunday in June, 1805, to devise ways and means 
to support the missionary cause. At this meeting arrange- 
ments were made to enter into a system of collecting money 
to aid missionary purposes. See Biggs’s History of Kehukee 
Association, p. 162. 

From this it will be seen that the first missionary society 
that was organized in this State was in the bounds of the 
Kehukee Association, and its members were mainly instru- 
mental in its organization. 

eae Vy Was not until 1827 that this body took a de- 
cided Anti-missionary position. Their minutes for 1814 con- 
tain the following resolution: 


“Resolved, that we send five dollars to the fund of the 
General Meeting of Correspondence, by the hands of Elder 
Philemon Bennett.” 

This Meeting of Correspondence was a Missionary Society. 

Again, the minutes for 1814 contain the following ap- 
pointment by the Kehukee Association: 

“Elders Jesse Read, William Lancaster, Philemon Ben- 
nett and Brother Bennett Barrow, and in ease of his failure, 
Brother Elisha Battle, are appointed delegates to the next 
General Meeting of Correspondence.” 

Evidently the Kehukee Association was at that time a mis- 
sionary body. 

Again, the circular letter for 1814 was rejected, and in- 
stead of it the Association agreed “that they would adopt a 
part of the address of the Baptist Convention, held in May 
last, at Philadelphia, for missionary purposes.” 

We have now clearly shown that the Kehukee Association, 
which, since 1827, has manifested such hostility to mission- 
ary institutions, was for a number of years previous to that 
date a missionary body ; consequently they are not “the Prim- 


86 The Regular Baptists. 


itive” but the New Baptists. The Regular or Missionary 
Baptists are now occupying the position that the Kehukee 
brethren did previous to 1826 and ’27. 

** * * The County Line Association, in the days of Elders 
William Brown, Richard Graves, Thomas Moore, Barzillai 
Graves, Stephen Chandler, George Roberts, David Lawson, 
R. Deshong and W. Stoval was a missionary body. 

In 1821 this Association wnanimously adopted and printed 
a circular letter which strongly advocated Sabbath schools. 

* * * * Eleven years after this they declared non-fellow- 
ship with Sabbath schools! When were they the Primitive 
or Old School Baptists—in 1821, when they earnestly so- 
licited attention to, and begged their members to establish 
Sabbath schools in every neighborhood, or in 1832, when 
they declared non-fellowship with Sabbath schools ? 

The minutes of the North Carolina Missionary Society 
show that, in 1825, contributions were sent up from seven 
churches, belonging to the County Line Association. * * * 
These are now the leading churches of the County Line As- 
sociation (now anti-missionary ). 

In 1817 and 1818, this Association sent messengers to the 
North Carolina Missionary Society. This is evident from 
the following extracts taken from their minutes for 1818: 

“The messengers appointed to attend the General Meeting 
reported and gave satisfaction.” 

“Received by the hands of Brother Roberts, the Fourth An- 
nual Report of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, which 
was distributed among the churches.” 

“The committee appointed to make collection on the Lord’s 
day reported they had received $32.45, for which a vote of 
thanks of this body (now anti-mission) is given to the con- 
gregation for their liberality, and the money placed in the 
hands of Brother John Campbell, to be conveyed to the treas- 
urer of the North Carolina Missionary Society.” 

“Brethren Geo. Roberts, John Landers, John Campbell and 
Nathan Williams are appointed to attend the General Meet- 


The Regular Baptists. 87 


ing of Correspondence, to meet in Fayetteville in August 
next.” - 

No Association was ever more fully committed to missions 
than the County Line was in 1818. 

Up to 1832, this body was in regular correspondence with 
the Sandy Creek and Flat River Associations, both of which 
are missionary bodies. 

* * * * Tn 1832, Elder James Osborne, of Baltimore, 
was present. Through his influence a large majority of this 
Association declared non-fellowship with all the benevolent 
societies of the day, and have since assumed the name of 
“The Old School” or “Primitive Baptists.” It is, however, a 
misnomer, for they were formerly the “Primitive Baptists,” 
but by changing their position, and instead of remaining Mis- 
sionary Baptists as they previously had been, they became 
the New Baptists. 

As Elder John Stadler, of the County Line Association, 
took an active part in bringing about the Anti-mission move- 
ments in that body, and afterward, it will not be imappro- 
priate to refer to him while on this subject. He has been 
the leading spirit of the County Line Association from its 
becoming anti, to the present time. (This was first published 
in 1858.) He has made considerable effort, in the bounds 
of the Sandy Creek Association, to lead them into Anti-ism, 
but has not been very successful. 

From a letter written by Elder Stadler, in reply to “A 
Friend of Truth,” now in the possession of Brother C. L. 
Teague, of Abbott’s Creek, we learn the following facts: 

1. The missionary board was first organized in the County 
Line Association in 1792, on the second day of October; then 
and there the contributions amounted to thirteen pounds two 
shillings one penny. 

2. It was not long (says Elder Stadler) after (his bap- 
tism) before the agent, Elder R. T. Daniel, came round and 
took up a collection, saying it was for traveling preachers, 


88 The Regular Baptists. 


ete., ‘and I (Elder Stadler) gave him fifty cents and my wife 
gave him twenty-five.” | 

3. Elder Stadler says: ‘‘While I was under conviction, 
Elder Campbell came to Bush Arbor church and asked for 
money to print the Bible in other tongues; and I thought my 
day of grace was gone, and that there was no mercy for me, 
and if one dollar would pay for printing one Bible, some one 
might read it, and it might stop them before it was too late.” 

4. Elder Stadler “went to every church” in the bounds of 
the County Line Association, in order to get them to go against 
missions, ete.—See Brother Teague’s letter, in the Biblical 
Recorder of February 3, 1859. 

While Elder Stadler was under conviction and thought his 
own day of grace was gone, he paid one dollar to the Buble 
Society! Soon after his conversion and baptism he paid fifty 
cents, for Home Missions, to Elder R. T. Daniel, agent! 

Some years after this, he changes his position and opposes 
these institutions, and goes from church to church to induce 
them to change also! And yet, he now claims that he is “a 
Primitive Baptist !”’ 

When was Elder Stadler a Primitive Baptist—when he 
gave his money to Home Missions, or afterward, when he 
changed and opposed missions? Elder Stadler and his anti- 
mission brethren are evidently the seceding or New Baptists. 

While Elder Stadler and others were changing and getting 
up divisions about missions, the Regular or Missionary Bap- 
tists went regularly on in support of missions, consequently 
they are the true “Primitive Baptists.” 

It is a falsification of history, and injustice to the Regular 
or Missionary Baptists, whenever the Anti-mission Baptists 
are called the “Old Side” or the “Primitive Baptists.” 

The Baltimore Baptist Association, so famous tor its anti- 
missionary character since 1836, was, previous to that date, 
a missionary Association. 

* * * * Jn their minutes for 1811 may be found the fol- 
lowing resolution: 


The Regular Baptists. 89 


‘Resolved, That this Association recommend the following 
plan to the churches in our connection, viz: that each church 
establish a mite society, each member to pay one cent a 
week,” ete. 

In 1814, the following record is on their minutes: 

“Received a corresponding letter from Bro. Rice, one of 
our missionary brethren, on the subject of encouraging mis- 
sionary societies,” etc. 

In their minutes for 1816, in their circular letter, they 
say: “The many revivals of religion which are witnessed 
in various parts of the country—the multiplication of Bible 
societies ; missionary societies, and Sunday schools, both in 
our own and foreign countries, are viewed by us as strong in- 
dications of the near approach of that day when the knowl- 
edge of the Lord shall cover the earth,” ete. 

Bro. Spencer H. Cone was appointed to preach a mission- 
ary sermon at our next Association. 

At this meeting (1816) the Association constituted itself 
into a “Board of Directors” on “Domestic Missions,” and 
earnestly recommended the churches to “use every exertion to 
collect sums to advance the Redeemer’s kingdom, and to trans- 
mit to the Board.” 

Again: “The standing clerk was instructed to supply the 
corresponding secretary of the Baptist Board of Foreign Mis- 
sions with a copy of our minutes annually.” 

In 1817, “a committee was appointed for Domestic Mis- 
sionary Affairs,” and Brethren O. B. Brown, James Osborne 
and Spencer H. Cone were appointed as Home Missionaries. 

Brother Luther Rice presented himself as the messenger 
of the Baptist Board for Foreign Missions, and was cordially 
recewed (in 1817). 

Elder James Osborne, who afterward became a disturber 
of the churches and a leader in the anti-mission ranks, was 
present and “cordially received” Brother Rice, and was af- 
terward appointed a Home Missionary ! 


90 The Regular Baptists. 


In 1818, the minutes say: “The Fourth Annual Report 
accompanied by a letter from the secretary of the Baptist 
Board for Foreign Missions, was read; the joyful contents 
of which could not fail to give delight,” ete. 

In their minutes for 1818, they call themselves, as the 
Missionary Baptists now do, “the Regular Baptists;” the 
name “Old School,” or “Primitive Baptists,” had not then 
been invented. 

In 1827, the Association passed the following preamble 
and resolution: 

“Whereas, Intelligence has been received of the death of 
our much esteemed sister, Ann H. Judson, for some time past 
a missionary in Burmah; therefore, 

“Resolved, That while we deeply regret this afflicting provi- 
dence, we consider it as loudly calling upon our brethren to 
be more interested in the prosperity of that mission, in which 
our deceased sister was engaged.” 

It was not until 1836 that this Association took an anti- 
missionary position. Af its session for this year, convened 
at the Black Rock M. H., it declared non-fellowship with 
missionary operations as follows, by a vote of sixteen to nine: 

“Whereas, A number of churches of this Association have 
departed from the practice of the same by following cun- 
ningly devised fables, uniting with, and encouraging others 
to unite in worldly societies, to the great grief of other 
churches of this body, ete.; therefore, 

“Resolved, That this Association can not hold fellowship 
with such churches,” ete. 

We have shown that this body, for a number of years, was 
in favor of, and encouraged what it in 1836 calls “cunningly 
devised fables,” and “worldly societies.” Consequently before 
this non-fellowship preamble and resolution they were Regu- 
lar Baptists, engaged in benevolent efforts, but after this they, 
by changing their principles, became New Baptists. They 
had once practiced the things they now condemn. The 


~ 


The Regular Baptists. 91 


great body of the Baptists of the United States went on as 
they had done before. The anti-mission party, calling them- 
selves the “Primitive Baptists,” 
the denomination, and yet it has been said that the Regular 
or Missionary Baptists have seceded from the Primitive Bap- 
tists! Who ever heard before of a body of at least four-fifths 
seceding from one-fifth ? 

There never was an organized body of Baptists in existence 
that opposed missions until since the beginning of the present 
century (1800) ; perhaps not further back than 1820 or ’25, 
and very few until about 1830. 

The English Baptists, the Philadelphia Association, the 
Sandy Creek Baptist Association, the Charleston, and many 
others, have never been connected, either in principle or prac- 
tice, with the Anti-mission movement. As long ago as 1689 
the English Baptists organized a benevolent society to raise 
a public fund for the following purposes: 

1. “To communicate thereof to those churches that are 
not able to maintain their own ministry, and that their min- 
isters may be encouraged wholly to devote themselves to the 
great work of preaching the gospel. 

2. “To send ministers that are ordained, or at least solemn- 
ly called to preach, both in the city (London) and country, 
where the gospel hath or hath not been preached, and to visit 
the churches. 

3. “To assist those members that are found in any of the 
aforesaid churches, that are disposed for study, having invit- 
ing gifts, and are sound in fundamentals, in attaining to the 
knowledge and understanding of the languages—Latin, Greek 
and Hebrew, ete.” 

* * * * The time is no doubt coming when we shall all 
again be one body, having one fold and one shepherd, work- 

_ing together in the glorious cause of Christ. 

We have now fully shown that the Regular or Missionary 

Baptists have not seceded from the Anti-mission Baptists. 


are but a small portion of 


92 The Regular Baptists. 


ROANOKE BAPTIST ASSOCIATION—VIRGINIA. 


This Association held its centennial session August, 1889. 
Elder Geo. B. Eager, in giving a retrospect of its history, 
quotes Elder Elias Dodson, who abounded in historical rem- 
iniscence: ‘‘The Missionaries and not the Anti-Missionaries 
are the Old Baptists. The great principles which the old 
Baptists advocated, the Anti-Missionaries do not fellowship. 
They split on Missions and Education. Look at history. In 
1644 the Baptists in Wales had two missionaries. The Phil- 
adelphia Association, the first in America, was composed in 
part of Welsh Baptists. Over one hundred years ago this 
body sent out two missionaries to North Carolina, Vanhorn 
and Miller. (And Gano, too.) The English Baptists that 
met in 1689 fostered missions; and, according to Howell’s 
History of Virginia Baptists, helped to send preachers into 
Virginia. In 1792 England formed a missionary society 
to send the Gospel to India. In 1814 the American Bap- 
tist Missionary Society was formed to send the Gospel to 
Burmah. In 1817 Elder James Osborne, leader of the Anti- 
Missionaries in after years was appointed a missionary of 
the Baltimore Association. They call us Fullerites. Bap- 
tists were engaged in missions and Education many years be- 
fore Fuller was born. Elder John Stadler, the leader of the 
Anti-Missionaries in several counties of North Carolina, was 
born in Granville in 1792. In 1789, three years before he 
was born, these old Baptists of Virginia and North Carolina 
resolved to erect a seminary to educate preachers and mani- 
fested a missionary spirit. No, the Anti-Missionaries 
are not the Old Baptists, as James Osborne is their father 
and leader. They are the New Baptists. They began in 
the Kehukee Association in 1827; in the Mayo Association 
in 1831; in the County Line Association in 1832, and in the 
Staunton River Association in 1839, all refusing to fellow- 
ship the missions and education of the Old Baptists.” 


Conclusion. 93 


CONCLUSION. 


REFLECTIONS ON THE SPLIT. 


Since having gone over the ground discussing the split, 
and the men engaged in it and the causes which led up to it, 
noting the points differentiating the Anti-mission Baptists 
from the Baptists who lived prior to the split, it is thought to 
be worth while to make some reflections on the foregoing. 

It is well to keep history straight as we go along and take 
nothing for granted just because somebody may see proper 
to lay claim to it. No history can lay claim to public con- 
fidence that does not faithfully record the transactions of 
events just as they occurred. 

We have seen that, prior to the split, there never was any 
organized dissent by Baptists to the work of missions, Sun- 
day (Bible) schools, societies for the distribution of religious 
literature, (Bibles and tracts) till it was worked up. Before 
1827 the Baptist brotherhood was almost a unit on all the 
methods of work then in operation to forward Christ’s king- 
dom on earth. But a few men began to develop signs of dis- 
content. <A little spark was kindled, the little flame was 
fanned, and in the shortest time imaginable, there was mis- 
understanding and confusion, where so shortly before peace 
and brotherly love reigned supreme. All this resulted in the 
disruption of some churches and of some Associations. But 
dividing Baptist forces and Baptist strength was not all, for 
in addition to this loss, they had to meet deadly opposition 
to all they had hitherto attempted to do, and which meant 
so much for truth. 

But there is not that intense bitterness that once prevailed. 
Many of the Anti-mission Baptists are becoming more con- 
servative and less inclined to be unreasonably critical. One 
of their preachers said, a few years ago, “We have made a 
mistake in opposing Sunday schools; our young people are 


94 Conclusion. 


going from us.” Others say, “I do not object to Sunday 
schools if you will take the Bible and leave off the helps, they 
are man’s work.” Is the Lord pleased or displeased with 
the study of his word in Sunday schools? Seventy-five to 
eighty-five per cent of the additions to our churches as noted 
elsewhere, coming from the Sunday school seems to answer 
the question in no uncertain sound. 

The publication of multiplied thousands of Bibles, Testa- 
ments and tracts, in almost every tongue and the vast num- 
bers of men and women in every clime turning from sin to 
serve the living God, is convincing testimony that God is 
richly blessing every agency to bring men to Christ. 

But as the strongest objection prevails against mission 
work, this subject will be considered more at length, Let 
us not forget that all these agencies are only a means to au 
end—that of carrying out the command of Christ. His com- 
mand is to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to 
every creature.” The command to “go” is emphatic, yet 
without detail, the Master leaving it to the common sense of 
His people as to how they may best carry out this command. 

Has the Lord given this work special recognition? He 
taught American Baptists a great lesson—one of such signif- 
icance as to be a perpetual inspiration down to the end of 
time. The movement in England was begun as early as pos- 
sible after the Reformation. They talked, they prayed, they 
gave money. This work was organized there soon after 
1790. This movement was destined to influence American 
Baptists. They were already moving, but their work was 
home mission work, without any general organization. They, 
as yet, had no foreign missionary in the field. But the agita- 
tion begun in England by Cary and Fuller and their coadju- 
tors, the news of which had reached our shores, had set Ameri- 
can Baptists thinking of their duty and responsibility to the 
heathen world. Our people had begun to feel the throb of 
mission life beyond the sea. 


Conclusion. 95 


Two young men in New England, neither of whom were 
Baptists—Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice—were moved 
to go and preach the gospel to the heathen. After all neces- 
sary preparation, arrangements were made for them to sail. 
Now they are out at sea on their long and tedious. voyage, 
though on different vessels. While on the way, neither know- 
ing the mind of the other, knowing that soon they would have 
to face the Baptist missionaries then on the field in regard 
to New Testament baptism, they began a careful, candid 
study of the subject of baptism from the Bible standpoint, 
so as to be ready to meet them after their arrival. The result 
was, that when they had reached their destination they were 
both Baptists in faith and soon sought baptism at the hands 
of the Baptist missionaries. 

Was this only a coincidence? Does it not look much more 
like a providence in which God in a mysterious way was go- 
ing to overrule all for His glory and the encouragement of 
American Baptists to do foreign mission work? One of these 
men remained on the field, the other returned to America to 
stir the Christian heart on the subject of foreign mission 
work. 

Must the Congregationalists who, in union with the State, 
had driven Roger Williams out into a dreary wilderness to 
face death during the severity of a New England winter be- 
cause of his espousal of the cause of soul-liberty and rejection 
of the State church; must the people who so unmercifully 
whipped Obadiah Holmes, a Baptist pastor, because he visited 
an aged and infirm member of his church, ministering to him 
in spiritual things in his own house; must the people who 
made the temporal side of Baptist life almost unbearable; 
were these the people who should afterward raise up, educate 
and otherwise fully equip for their life-work the first foreign 
missionaries of American Baptists? It would seem so. But 
why not? If the Egyptians who regarded God’s chosen peo- 
ple as only fit subjects for Egyptian serfdom, must educate 


96 , Conclusion. ' 


that he might, under God, lead his people out of 
bondage; and if the wicked Jews who so hated and 


elgn missionaries ¢ ‘: 
This mysterious providence doubtless was ‘intende of 
as unmistakable evidence of His will that we engage : 
work. i‘ 
The American Board of Missions was organized and 
great work was moving on smoothly—not one word of 
plaint now, too much interested to complain. ‘ 
it is Bs re hoped, oe is devoutly wished that a Be 


Tur Enp. 


